ORDER : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner complainant has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 03.10.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in connection with FIR No. 519/2014 registered at Police Station Udai Mandir, Jodhpur and FR No. 500/2014 whereby, the negative final report submitted by the police after investigation of the above FIR was accepted and the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan in revision whereby the aforesaid order was affirmed. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner lodged a report with an allegation that the respondent Subhash Goyal submitted a forged affidavit before this Court in writ petition being SBCWP No. 2755/2014 claiming himself to be present at Jodhpur on 06.04.2014 whereas, the said accused was working as a booth level officer in the Lok Sabha Elections-2014 and was present at Sri. Ganganagar on the relevant date. The petitioner lodged the FIR against Subhash Goyal, Rajesh Goyal, Mahesh Goyal and Kavita with these allegations at the Police Station Udai Mandir. The investigating officer conducted thorough investigation and found the allegations of the complainant to be false and frivolous and submitted a negative final report. The Magistrate gave notice after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, rejected the protest petition filed by him and accepted the negative final report filed by the I.O vide a detailed order dated 03.10.2015 The learned Magistrate held that the respondent Subhash Goyal had been given permission by his superior officers to leave the headquarters from 05.04.2017 to 07.04.2017 During this period, Subhash Goyal came down to Jodhpur, swore the affidavit and returned to Sri. Ganganagar. The said finding of the I.O is fortified by documentary as well as oral evidence collected during investigation. The detailed order passed by the learned Magistrate has been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan by a well reasoned order running into 13 pages passed on 02.11.2016 The petitioners and the respondents are entangled in property litigation and thus, the malafide intention of the petitioner to somehow entangle the respondents into a criminal case at writ large on the face of the record. 3. 3. Having appreciated the arguments advanced by Shri. Bishnoi and after perusing the material available on record, I am of the firm opinion that no interference is called for in the orders passed by the learned courts below which do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity whatsoever. 4. As a consequence, the instant misc. petition is rejected as being devoid of merit.