ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 20.07.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu (for short ‘the revisional court’ hereinafter), whereby it has dismissed the Cr. Revision Petition No.57/2009. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 24.06.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu (for short ‘the trial court’ hereinafter) in Cr. Case No.254/2009, whereby it has negated the final report filed by the police in connection with FIR No.67/2007 of Police Station, Rajgarh, District Churu and taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and summoned them through warrant of arrest. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the trial court on 10.02.2007 against the petitioner No.1 Mahendra Singh and one Rajveer son of Satyapal, resident of Suratpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu alleging therein that from 21.05.2006 to 31.05.2006 a work for construction of Khura from the house of Mairam to the house of Phoola Ram Khati was sanctioned by the Disaster Management and Aid Department of Government . For the said work, muster roll No.217748 was issued by the Government to the petitioner No.1 Mahendra Singh. It is alleged that in the said muster roll, an entry was made at serial No.10 in respect of Rajveer showing that he worked as labour, however he is working in Indian Army and was not present at village Suratpura during the period, the said Khura Road was being constructed and, therefore, it is clear that the petitioner No.1 has committed forgery and illegally made forged entry in the muster roll and on the basis of the said entry, misappropriated a sum of Rs.1080/-. 3. The police after thorough investigation has submitted the final report while concluding that the entry in the muster roll was made by Patwari and Gram Sewak concerned and the petitioner No.1 being a Sarpanch did not make any entry in the muster roll. The police has also concluded that as a matter of fact at the time of making entries of labours in the muster roll, name of Rajveer was wrongly mentioned in place of his brother Rajkumar. The police has also concluded that as a matter of fact at the time of making entries of labours in the muster roll, name of Rajveer was wrongly mentioned in place of his brother Rajkumar. Later on, an application was moved by Rajkumar and the payment of the work done by him was made to him as per the instructions given by Block Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti concerned. The police has, therefore, concluded that the allegation levelled in the FIR of making forged entry against the petitioners is not made out. 4. Before the trial court, the respondent No.2 had contested the FR filed by the police and the trial court after hearing counsel for the respondent No.2 and after going through the material collected by the police during the course of investigation has observed that prima facie evidence of commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is available on record against the petitioners and, therefore, it took cognizance against them for the aforesaid offences and summoned them through warrant of arrest. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved with the order of trial court taking cognizance against them for the aforesaid offences preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the revisional court rejected the said revision petition vide impugned order dated 20.07.2013 and affirmed the order passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as a matter of fact , the petitioner No.1 never made any entry in the muster roll issued for the purpose of construction of Khura Road from the house of Mairam to the house of Phoola Ram Khati in village Suratpura and as a matter of fact the said muster roll was issued by the revenue department to the Patwari concerned directly and the entires made in the said muster roll were made by the Gram Sewak concerned. It is contended that during the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of concerned Patwari Prithvi Singh and Gram Sewak Pratap Singh, who have specifically stated that the entries in the muster roll No.217748 were not made by the petitioner No.1. 7. It is contended that during the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of concerned Patwari Prithvi Singh and Gram Sewak Pratap Singh, who have specifically stated that the entries in the muster roll No.217748 were not made by the petitioner No.1. 7. It is also argued that the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 regarding making forged entry in the muster roll and making wrong payment to Rajveer son of Satyapal were also thoroughly investigated by the Vikas Adhikari of Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh, District Churu and after investigation, it was concluded that name of Rajveer son of Satyapal has inadvertently been written in the muster roll in place of Rajkumar, who is real brother of Rajveer as the person, who made the entry in the muster roll was not aware about his exact name. It is also concluded in the said investigation that the complaint against the then Sarpanch, petitioner No.1 Mahendra Singh has been filed on account of some political enmity. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, argued that from the material available on record, there is no evidence available against the petitioners, however, the courts below without taking into consideration the material available on record in right perspective have wrongly ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders passed by both the courts below may be set aside and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners may be dropped. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 have submitted that the courts below have thoroughly scrutinized the material available on record and given a prima facie finding to the effect that the allegations against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are made out, therefore, the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with. 10. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the material collected by the police during the course of investigation. 11. 10. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the material collected by the police during the course of investigation. 11. Both the courts below have concluded that the petitioner No.1 has identified Rajveer son of Satyapal at the time of making entry in the muster roll No.217748, however, from bare perusal of the copy of muster roll No.217748, it is clear that there is no specific identification by the petitioner NO.1 of Rajveer and he simply countersigned the muster roll and in the end of it has simply written that labours have done their work on the road. The concerned Patwari Prithvi Singh and Gram Sewak Pratap Singh in their police statements have stated that the entries in the muster roll were made by a mate and they have not stated that the entries in the muster roll in question were made by the petitioner No.1. They have also not stated in their statements that at the time of making inadvertent entry of Rajveer son of Satyapal, the petitioner No.1 identified Rajveer son of Satyapal as Rajkumar. It is also not in dispute that the muster roll in question for the purpose of construction of Khura road was handed over to the concerned Patwari and Gram Sewak and not to the petitioner No.1. The enquiry conducted by the Vikas Adhikar of Panchayat Samiti has exonerated the petitioner No.1 while concluding that it is a mere case of inadvertent entry in the muster roll and the complaint against the petitioner No.1 was filed due to political enmity. 12. Having considered the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the courts below have erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 13. In view of the above discussions, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 24.06.2009 and 20.07.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu and Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu respectively are set aside. Consequently, the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners is also dismissed.