ORDER : This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 26th July, 2004 passed by learned 12th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in connection with Criminal Revision No.272 of 2003 whereby the criminal revision preferred by the petitioners stood dismissed and the order dated 22.11.2003, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with G.R. Case No.1687 of 2001 has been upheld. 2. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner no.1 has obtained a shop on rent in the premises of the complainant. Some dispute cropped up between the complainant-landlord and tenant-petitioners and after that supply of electricity and other amenities had been stopped by the complainant. Petitioner no.1 filed a petition u/s 10 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 before the rent controller for restoration of electricity and other amenities in the shop in question. During pendency of the proceeding, petitioners had furnished certain rent receipts allegedly to be forged. When the complainant could learnt about those forged rent receipts, he filed a complaint vide C.P. Case No.282 of 2001 and the said case was sent to the concerned police station for registration and investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet against both the petitioners. 3. A petition for discharge was filed by the petitioners before the learned trial Court and after granting hearing to the parties at length, the petition was rejected vide order dated 22.11.2003. The petitioners then preferred Crl. Revision No.272 of 2003 before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad which stood disposed of from the Court of learned 12th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and the revision so preferred stood rejected. 4. It is submitted that the complainant had no authority to file complaint against filing of forged rent receipts before a Court. As a matter of fact, the concerned Court before whom forged documents had been filed, should have held enquiry u/s 340 of the Cr.P.C. and if the concerned Court formed an opinion holding guilty to the person concerned, the Court should have filed complaint as required u/s 195 of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate has not considered the material collected in the case diary and the points raised by the petitioners have not properly been addressed too. The learned Addl. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge without giving independent thought, passed impugned order placing reliance on the findings of the learned Magistrate. The impugned orders are highly erroneous, illegal and therefore, liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party has opposed the prayer and submitted that it is not a case in which forgery has been committed in the document and record pending before the Court rather forged documents have been filed for getting favourable order. The complainant who was aggrieved, after knowing the fact, lodged complaint on the basis of which a case was registered at the police station when it was sent u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after conducting investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. There are ample materials on the record to proceed further and the order of learned Magistrate is well reasoned. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has considered the material on record and passed the order impugned which need no interference. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also relied on the judgment reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2119 (Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah). 6. I have gone through the orders impugned. It appears that the learned Magistrate, after granting hearing to the parties, has passed elaborate order discussing and referring the facts collected by the I.O. in the case diary. It is indicated in the order that incriminating document part of which were used for creating forged document, had been recovered from the shop of the petitioners. There is concurrent findings when the learned Addl. Sessions Judge refused to give relief to the petitioners and rejected the prayer made by them vide Crl. Revision No. 272 of 2003. I do not find any illegality or ambiguity in the orders impugned and the grounds taken in this Cr.M.P. do not attract any of the points discussed by their Lordships in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 7. In view of the discussions made above, this Cr.M.P. stands dismissed. The stay granted in favour of the petitioners stands vacated. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Court below on the date fixed and they shall cooperate with the trial. Petition dismissed.