JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition stands preferred by the aggrieved complainant, against, the pronouncement recorded on 5.9.2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, upon, Cr. Appeal No. 14-P/X/08, whereby, he set aside the orders recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palampur, upon, Cr. Complaint No. 142-II-2005, whereby, the latter had found prima facie case against the respondents/accused for theirs committing offences punishable under Section 193, 471 and 120-B of the IPC AND had also directed for transmission, of, the criminal complaint, to, the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 2. The foundation of the complaint instituted by the complainant/petitioner herein, against, the respondents herein/accused, (i) is comprised in a copy of agreement, Annexure P-5, certified copy whereof, bears, mark C-10, (ii) being the one appended initially along with Civil Suit No. 123/2002, whereas, subsequent thereto, another agreement comprised in Ex. C-8, being produced before this Court and before the learned trial Court concerned, (iii) wherein, clause (7) hitherto not existing in Annexure P-5, rather found occurrence therein. Consequently, it is contended that, thereupon, the respondents/accused were intending to draw untenable leverage therefrom. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has contended with vigour that with respondents herein/accused, in their reply furnished, to the show cause notice, making communications of theirs relying upon Ex. C-8, thereupon, it is per se evident therefrom, (i) of, theirs acquiescing, of theirs, surreptitiously introducing it, on the file of civil suit No. 123 of 2002, pending before the learned trial Court concerned, (ii) AND more so, after theirs removing the initially therewith appended agreement, as, borne in Annexure P-5, from, the file of the aforesaid civil suit. Consequently he contends that with the verdict impugned before this Court palpably not taking into account the aforesaid factum, thereupon, its warranting interference by this Court. 4. Consequently he contends that with the verdict impugned before this Court palpably not taking into account the aforesaid factum, thereupon, its warranting interference by this Court. 4. Before proceeding to deal with the vigour of the aforesaid arguments addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, the imperative factum enjoined, to be, borne in mind, (i) is, of Civil Suit No.123 of 2002, instituted by the petitioner herein, as plaintiff against one Yashoda Devi, being dismissed on 28.08.2008, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) concerned, (ii) besides, of, in the aforesaid suit, an application preferred by the respondent herein, application whereof, was, cast under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, being also dismissed. (iii) AND apparently, of, the purportedly forged agreement borne in Ex. C-8, rather being appended with the aforesaid application. The apposite complaint was lodged, during, the pendency of Civil Suit No.123 of 2002. It appears, from, a perusal of the record, of, the trial judge seeking explanations from the official concerned, holding legal custody, of, the record, AND on the official concerned meteing an explanation thereto, (iv) the learned trial Judge concerned, on 9.5.2003, accepting his explanation and permitting the placing on record, the photo copy of the original agreement initially appended with Civil Suit No. 123 of 2002, agreement whereof is marked as Annexure C-10. Conspicuously, with the explanation, meted by the official concerned, who held the legal custody of the relevant records, hence, coming to be accepted by the learned trial judge concerned also when subsequent to 5.9.2003, the photo copy of the initially appended agreement with civil suit No.123 of 2002, also being permitted to be placed on record, besides when mark C-10, is evidently not demonstrated, to be not the photo copy of the original thereof, (iv) rather when the certified copy thereof, was supplied, to the complainant/petitioner herein AND preeminently reiteratedly also when a copy thereof, after its location by its custodian, was, hence permitted to be taken on record by the trial Judge concerned, hence, when thereupon it is acquiesced to be an undisputed copy thereof (v) thereupon, when it has not been shown, that, merely on account, of, non existence or non tenderings or lack of proof, of, the photo copy, from the original, of, the initially appended agreement, with Civil Suit No.123 of 2002, hence sequelling, dismissal, of the aforesaid suit, (vi) thereupon, it cannot be concluded that in its purported misplacing, purportedly at the instance of the respondents/accused any purported wrongful loss or gain hence occurred vis-a-vis the litigant concerned. 5. Be that as it may, as aforestated, even the Civil Suit, filed before this Court by the litigant concerned, rather came to be dismissed as withdrawn. In the aforesaid civil suit, also the purportedly forged agreement, as also, purportedly introduced, upon, the file of Civil Suit No.123 of 2002 instituted before the learned trial Court concerned, is therein, too, contended to be relied upon. However, in the face of (a) accused/respondents' application cast under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, before, the learned trial Court concerned, during, the pendency of Civil Suit No.123 of 2002, wherewith the purportedly forged agreement was appended, rather hence coming to be dismissed; (b) besides the apposite civil suit instituted by the litigants concerned before this Court also coming to be dismissed, as withdrawn, sequels thereof, is that hence no benefit came to thereupon accrue vis-a-vis the accused/respondents herein. 6. 6. Apart from the above, the effects of the aforesaid purported acquiescences, emanating, from the responses, afore referred, meted, by the accused/respondents herein vis-a-vis the show cause notice, issued vis-a-vis them, (i) does not at all carry forward any inference of theirs surreptitiously, for securing any benefits, theirs introducing it, emphatically, even in the file of Civil Suit No.123 of 2002, (ii) rather the effect of the aforesaid inference is squarely countervailed, by, the factum of the subsequent agreement being evidently not borne on the file of Civil Suit No.123 of 2002, (iii) rather it being borne, on, file of a Civil Suit, whereto stood assigned, a number other than the number assigned vis-a-vis the Civil suit, under, litigation inter se the parties at contest here at. Consequently, bearing in mind all the aforesaid trite factum, it is difficult to make any conclusion (iv) that upon anvil of the subsequent purportedly forged agreement, the respondents intending, to make, any capitalization either in Civil Suit instituted before this Court, civil suit whereof came to be dismissed as withdrawn or theirs intending, to make any capitalization therefrom, in Civil Suit No.123 of 2002 instituted, before, the learned trial Court concerned, civil suit whereof also came to be dismissed. The simple reason, for making the aforesaid inference is anvilled upon (v) that apart from, the subsequent agreement containing clause (7), whereas, clause whereof, not, existing in the earlier agreement, initially appended with Civil Suit No. 123 of 2002, there, occurring no recitals in the complaint, of, its not carrying the signatures of any signatory thereto nor hence it came to be proven to be carrying the unauthentic signatures, of any, of the executants thereof, (vi) thereupon, per se, upon, the mere factum of clause (7) existing therein, clause whereof was amiss in the earlier agreement, no conclusion can prima facie be drawn of its granting, any strength, to, the espousal of the respondents herein, (vii) significantly, when only upon cogent proof, of, its un-authenticities, on all fronts, an adversarial conclusion was drawable vis-a-vis the respondents herein. In aftermath, the disputed agreement dehors the aforesaid proofs, is obviously inchoate AND premature. 7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the order impugned here-at, is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.