Judgment :- 1. By consent, the revision case itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused in Cr.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the Central Crime Branch/respondent herein for the alleged commission of offence under Section 467 of I.P.C. 3. According to the prosecution, the petitioner claims that she belongs to Hindu Kattunayakkan community, listed as Scheduled Tribes and consequently, she got a job in Postal Department. On verification, it was found that she did not belong to Kattunayakkan community, as per the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 23.12.1995. Based on the said proceedings, the respondent has registered the said case, which after investigation culminated in a charge-sheet, taken on file in C.C.No.154 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Madurai, charging the petitioner under Section 467 I.P.C. 4. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.6099 of 2010 and that was dismissed on 16.10.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Case. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P.No.8187 of 1999 and would submit that the proceedings of the District Collector, Madurai District dated 23.12.1995, based on which F.I.R came to be registered was put to challenge in the said writ petition and a Division Bench of this Court has allowed the writ petition on 21.01.2009 by setting aside the said order and remanded the matter once again to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration and in the light of the said order, the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence, he prays for allowing of this Criminal Revision Case. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Tribe Kattunayakkan community. However, she managed to obtain a false Community Certificate and joined in the Postal Department and the District Collector, Madurai, considered the same and accordingly, passed an order on 23.12.1995, ordering cancellation of Community Certificate and therefore, the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner is in order and prayed for dismissal of this Criminal Revision Case. 7. However, she managed to obtain a false Community Certificate and joined in the Postal Department and the District Collector, Madurai, considered the same and accordingly, passed an order on 23.12.1995, ordering cancellation of Community Certificate and therefore, the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner is in order and prayed for dismissal of this Criminal Revision Case. 7. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed a petition (Petition No.19998 of 2014) before the State Level Scrutiny Committee to expedite the proceedings. He would further submit that a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2015 has directed the State Level Scrutiny Committee to dispose of the matter within a stipulated time. 8. This Court has gone through the materials available on record, especially the order dated 21.01.2009 made in W.P.8187 of 1999 as well as the charge-sheet. 9. Registration of the F.I.R in Cr.No.22 of 2005 and the final report in this case is solely based on the proceedings of the District Collector dated 23.12.1995 and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said order has been put to challenge in the above said writ petition and it was allowed and the order of the District Collector was also set aside. Since the order of the District Collector, based on which, the present criminal proceedings had been launched, came to be set aside and no longer in existence, continuation of the criminal prosecution, would definitely lead to miscarriage of justice. 10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.6099/2010 in C.C.No.154 of 2010 dated 16.10.2014 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is discharged. It is made clear that it is open to the respondent to launch a fresh prosecution against the petitioner, in case, the State Level Scrutiny Committee arrive at a finding that the petitioner did not belong to Kattunayakkan community. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.