JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner against the order dated 01.04.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar, Camp Suratgarh (‘revisional court’) in Criminal Revision No.27/98, whereby, while allowing the revision filed by accused-respondent No.2, the order dated 11.09.1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh (‘trial court’) in Criminal Case No.541/98 was quashed and set aside; vide the said order dated 11.09.1998, the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused-respondent No.2 under Sections 182, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that a complaint was submitted by complainant/petitioner-Boord Singh before the learned trial court alleging therein that accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh had furnished a wrong information before the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Gram Panchayat Sardargarh regarding the death (occurred on 13.06.1990) of one Hazoor Singh s/o Kan Singh, r/o Chak 9 NRD, and on the basis of the same, a forged death certificate of his death was obtained; whereas, as per the complaint, the said Hazoor Singh was alive and residing in Village Kotbhai, Tehsil Mukatsar; the said Hazoor Singh had three sons, namely, Harnek Singh, Preetam Singh and Hardev Singh; such information, amongst others, regarding the fact that the said Hazoor Singh was alive, was also confirmed and verified by the Gram Panchayat, Kotbhai. 2.1 Learned counsel further submits that as per the complaint, the grandfather (Kan Singh) of the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh had no son with the name Hazoor Singh, and the same was also confirmed and verified by the then Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat Saheebchand, which was also enclosed with the complaint in question; it is also reflected in the said enclosure that Kan Singh had three sons, namely, Jagat Singh, Gurbaksh Singh and Ujagar Singh, and two daughters, namely, Harkaur and Roopakaur. 2.2 Learned counsel also submits that the complaint further discloses that the present accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh is the son of Hazoor Singh’s sister, namely, Roopakaur i.e. real nephew (bhaanja), but on the basis of certain forged certificate, he pretended himself otherwise to be Hazoor Singh’s nephew (Bhatija); not only this, Avtar Singh, on the pretext, of a forged Adoption Deed (Goadnama), has shown his son, namely, Charan Singh, to be the adopted (kholayat) son of Hazoor Singh, while also showing the said Hazoor Singh issue-less (beaulaad), whereas the said Hazoor Singh already had two sons, as mentioned above. 2.3 Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in pursuance of the aforementioned criminal and wrongful acts, on the part of the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh, he was willing to unlawfully acquire the entire land of the said Hazoor Singh measuring 10 bighas comprising Chak 9 NRD (B); 25 bighas of land comprising chak 2 BPM and; 19 bighas of land comprising Chak 12 NRD (B). 2.4 Learned counsel also submits that the complaint in question was forwarded by the learned trial court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to the concerned police station, whereupon a case bearing NO.97/94 was registered at Police Station, Suratgarh, and the investigation accordingly commenced; however, after investigation, the concerned investigating officer submitted a negative final report before the learned trial court, while stating therein that Hazoor Singh s/o Kan Singh, whose death certificate has been obtained by the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh, actually expired; whereas the person with the name Hazoor Singh, as mentioned in the complaint in question, was Hazoor Singh s/o Bhaag Singh, and thus, as per the investigating authority, no prima facie case has been found to be made out against the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh. 2.5 Learned counsel also submitted that the complainant/petitioner objected the aforementioned negative final report, by way of filing a protest petition, in support of the averments thereof, the complainant/petitioner, the testimonies of certain witnesses, as produced by the complainant/petitioner, were recorded; on the basis of the contents of the protest petition, substantiated by the testimonies of the said witnesses, the learned trial court, on finding a prima facie case to be proved against the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh, took cognizance against him under Sections 182, 419, 420, 468 & 471 IPC, vide the order dated 11.09.1998; however, the said order upon being challenged by the accused-respondent No.2 before the learned revisional court, was set aside vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2000, which is under challenge in the present petition being preferred by the complainant/petitioner herein. 2.6 Learned counsel also submits that from the aforementioned factual backdrop, which speaks much about the criminal and wrongful conduct and act on the part of the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar in getting the forged and fabricated documents prepared and obtained (death certificate and Goadnama in question), with the clear motive of unlawfully acquiring the possession and ownership rights over the entire property (aforementioned lands) of Hazoor Singh (as mentioned in the complaint); thus, the learned trial court has rightly taken cognizance against him, as mentioned above, while declining to accept the negative final report submitted before it by the concerned investigating officer. 2.7 Learned counsel thus submits that since the learned trial court has passed a well reasoned speaking order of cognizance dated 11.09.1998, after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case, as required at the stage of cognizance, therefore, reversal of the same by the learned revisional court vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2000, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, and accordingly, deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 3. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 oppose the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the complainant/petitioner, while submitting that the learned revisional court, has rightly passed the impugned order whereby the learned court quashed and set aside the aforementioned cognizance order of the learned trial court; the same was done by the learned revisional court, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and after considering the entire evidence placed on record before it, more particularly, various self-contradictory averments that were made in the complaint in question by the complainant himself, which is clearly discernible on the face of the record. 3.1. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents further submits that the learned revisional court has rightly found that the complainant/petitioner has clearly failed to prove as to how the alleged offences were made out against the accused-respondent No.2, that too, on the basis of the averments, which are not only self-contradictory, but also go contrary to the record and factual matrix of the case; this is more so, when the averments of the complaint could not be substantiated by placing any cogent and sufficient material and evidence on record. Thus, as per learned counsel, the learned revisional court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, while quashing and setting aside the cognizance order passed by the learned trial court, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be sustained by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case. 5. This Court observes that the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court is a detailed and well reasoned speaking order, dealing with each and every aspect of the case, as was necessary at this stage. 6. This Court further noticed the findings recorded by the learned revisional court, which read as follows: 6.1 As per the complainant himself, accused-respondent No.2 was the son of Ujagar Singh; in the complaint, it was mentioned that the grandfather (Kan Singh) of the accused-respondent No.2 had no son with the name Hazoor Singh, and Kan Singh had three sons, namely, Jagat Singh, Gurbaksh Singh and Ujagar Singh, and two daughters, namely, Harkaur and Roopakaur. In the same complaint, it was further stated that the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh was the son of Hazoor Singh’s sister i.e. nephew (Bhaanja) of Hazoor Singh. Both the averments are clearly contradictory to each other, and thus, cannot be believed. 6.2 Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear that Roopakaur had a brother with the name Hazoor Singh; whereas, as per the complainant, Kan Singh was not having any son with that name (Hazoor Singh). 6.3 Further, as per the complaint, although the name of the grandfather of the accused-respondent No.2-Avatar Singh was Kan Singh, but if the accused-respondent No.2 was the son of Roopakaur d/o Kan Singh, then the said Kan Singh was the maternal grandfather of the accused-respondent No.2, and thus, even prima facie the averments of the complaint clearly shows that Kan Singh was having a son with the name Hazoor Singh. 6.4 During the course of investigation, the concerned investigating officer has collected various evidence – oral as well as documentary -pertaining to the present case, which are sufficient to falsify the case of the complainant against the accused-respondent No.2, but the same were not taken into due consideration by the learned trial court, before passing the cognizance order against the accused-respondent. 6.4.1 Though, it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of cognizance, the court is not required to make a detailed and threadbare analysis of the evidence placed on record before it, but when the evidence collected, amongst others, during the course of investigation clearly and prima facie projects a completely different picture, and when such evidence has a significant bearing upon the important aspects of the case, then such evidence has to be taken into due consideration; this is more so when, the court reaches to a conclusion to pass an order for initiation of criminal proceeding against an accused-concerned, while taking cognizance against him; such consideration, as per the learned revisional court, was not at all made by the learned trial court. 6.5 Apart from the above, the death certificate in question, which has been produced by the accused-respondent No.2 in support of his defence, was pertaining to Hazoor Singh s/o Kan Singh r/o Sahib Chand, whereas the death certificate produced by the complainant was in relation to Hazoor Singh s/o Bhaag Singh r/o Kotbhai. 6.5 Apart from the above, the death certificate in question, which has been produced by the accused-respondent No.2 in support of his defence, was pertaining to Hazoor Singh s/o Kan Singh r/o Sahib Chand, whereas the death certificate produced by the complainant was in relation to Hazoor Singh s/o Bhaag Singh r/o Kotbhai. 6.6 As per the evidence collected during the course of investigation, the adoption deed (Goadnama) pertaining to adoption of accused-respondent’s son Charan Singh by Hazoor Singh s/o Kan Singh on 06.07.1989 was prepared in the presence of the then Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar, and correctness thereof was also substantiated by various other witnesses. 6.7 Thus, it is clear that the learned trial court has given undue weightage to the oral evidence, that too false, as against the documentary evidence sufficiently substantiating the case of the accused-respondents. 7. In view of the aforementioned cogent and reasoned findings recorded by the learned revisional court, this Court finds that though an attempt has been made by the complainant/petitioner to falsely implicate the present accused-respondent No.2 in the present case and the same also find favour with the learned trial court vide the cogizance order dated 11.09.1998, but the same has been set at naught by the learned revisional court vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2000, and rightly so. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find a case to be made out so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the impugned order dated 01.04.2000 passed by the learned revisional court, whereby the cognizance order dated 11.09.1998 passed by the learned trial court was quashed and set aside. 9. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.