JUDGMENT 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 05.07.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, Camp Sangaria ('revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.94/96 (90/96), whereby while allowing the revision petition filed by accused-respondent No.2-Madan Lal, the order dated 19.01.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya ('trial court') in the complaint submitted by complainant/petitioner, was quashed and set aside; vide the said order dated 19.01.1996, the learned trial court, while declining to accept the negative final report submitted before it by the police, took cognizance against accused- respondent No.2-Madan Lal under Sections 465 and 468 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submitted that on 20.11.1995 (as mentioned in the revisional order), a complaint was lodged by complainant/petitioner-Smt. Shanti d/o Late Sultan and Late Ankauri, before the learned trial court. It was mentioned in the said complaint that Sultan, father of the present complainant, was having an agricultural land (kabza kasht) comprising Chak 12 PTP, 15 PTP, 16 PTP, 17 PTP and 3 KRW & 9 IDG; after Sultan's death, the entire land of the said chaks, under inheritance, was entered in the name of his son Late Lal Chand (brother of the present complainant-Shanti). 2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the complaint further discloses that in December, 1961, the said Lal Chand expired, whereupon, the land comprising Chak 16 PTP and 17 PTP, was entered in the name of Late Ankori, Kalodevi and Late Paalo Devi (wife of accused-respondent No.2- Madan Lal), while the agricultural land comprising 12 PTP, 15 PTP, 3 KRW & 9 IDG remained in the name of Late Lal Chand; whereas, as per the family partition arrived long back, the lands of all the aforementioned chaks were partitioned accordingly; and the agricultural land measuring 54 bighas of Chak 17 PTP came in the share of Late Ankori (mother of the present complainant), Kalo Devi and Paalo Devi (wife of the accused-respondent No.2) in equal share i.e. 18 bighas-18 bighas-18 bighas. 2.2 Learned counsel also submitted that thereafter, Smt. Ankori died, while under a Will by Late Ankori, executed during her lifetime, her entire share in the agricultural land, was given to present complainant/petitioner-Shanti and her sister Jaikori. 2.3. 2.2 Learned counsel also submitted that thereafter, Smt. Ankori died, while under a Will by Late Ankori, executed during her lifetime, her entire share in the agricultural land, was given to present complainant/petitioner-Shanti and her sister Jaikori. 2.3. The sheet anchor of the said complaint, as per learned counsel, was a fabricated and forged Waarisnama of Late Lal Chand dated 04.09.1995, allegedly prepared by accused- respondent No.2-Madan Lal (while abusing his position as the then Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kishanpura Utaradha), who was also the husband of Late Paalo Devi d/o Late Lal Chand (s/o Late Sultan and brother of the present complainant/petitioner-Shanti); the said Waarisnama of Late Lal Chand was pertaining to succession as to the agricultural land, which was originally entered in the name of complainant's father-Late Sultan, and thereafter in the name of Late Sultan's son, Late Lal Chand (brother of the present complainant/petitioner). 2.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the complaint discloses that as per the alleged fabricated and forged Waarisnama of Late Lal Chand, which was prepared by the accused-respondent No.2, the legal heirs of Late Lal Chand were his wife Kalo Devi and his daughter Paalo Devi (wife of the accused-respondent No.2); whereas Late Ankori (w/o Late Sultan and mother of Late Lal Chand) was also the legal heir of Late Sultan (original khatedar of the entire land); thereby depriving the present complainant-Shanti and his sister Jaikori of their lawful rights and interest in the land, being inherited by them under a Will executed by Late Ankori, during her lifetime, in regard to her share in the land in question. 2.5 Learned counsel also submitted that the ill-intention of the accused-respondent No.2-Madan Lal (husband of Late Paalo Devi - d/o Late Lal Chand) is apparent on the face of the record, to the effect that, he, in pursuance of the fabricated and forged Waarisnama of Late Lal Chand and in connivance with the then patwari concerned, while treating himself (accused-respondent No.2 as owner of 1/2 of the land) got the necessary revenue entries made in the revenue records in favour of his sons, namely, Rajendra Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, in respect of the land comprising Chak 15 PTP, 12 PTP & 9 IDG), while the identical revenue entries, on the basis of the alleged fabricated and forged Waarisnama, were made in the revenue records, in favour of Kalo Devi (w/o Late Lal Chand) in regard to the remaining half share of the land; thereby effecting 1/2-1/2 share each pertaining to the aforementioned entire land, in favour of Paalo Devi (accused's wife) and Kalo Devi, as a result of which the complainant/petitioner got deprived of her lawful right and interest in the said land. 2.6 Learned counsel further submitted that the criminal conduct of the accused-respondent is also discernible from the fact that though Lal Chand (father-in-law of the accused-respondent No.2) expired in December, 1961, but the alleged revenue entries in question, in connivance with the then patwari, on the strength of the fabricated and forged Waarisnama of Late Lal Chand, were made in the year 1995. 2.7 Learned counsel thus submitted that complainant-Shanti, by filing the aforementioned complaint, prayed for initiation of the criminal proceeding against the accused-respondent No.2-Madan Lal under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC; whereupon, the learned trial court forwarded the same under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, to the SHO, Police Station Sangariya; whereupon after registration of the case for the alleged offences against the accused-respondent No.2, investigation commenced; however, after investigation, the concerned investigating officer submitted a negative final report before the learned trial court, on the ground that the Waarisnama in question, as per the definition contained in Section 464 IPC, did not fall within the definition of a fabricated document, and the death of Smt. Ankori (mother of the complainant and Late Lal Chand) had occurred on 15.05.1995 , whereas the Warrisnama in question was prepared on 04.09.1995 i.e. after the death of Smt. Ankori, therefore, she was not at all the legal heir of Late Lal Chand. 2.8 Learned counsel also submitted that the complainant/petitioner filed an objection against the aforementioned negative final report submitted by the police before the learned trial court, on the basis of which, the learned trial court, vide order dated 19.01.1996, took cognizance against the accused-respondent No.2 under Sections 465 and 468 IPC, whereagainst the accused-respondent No.2 preferred a revision petition before the learned revisional court; the said revision petition was allowed vide impugned order dated 05.07.2000, while quashing and setting aside the cognizance order passed by the learned trial court. 2.9 Learned counsel however, submitted that from the aforementioned factual backdrop, which speaks much about the criminal conduct and act on the part of the accused-respondent No.2 in preparing the fabricated and forged Waarisnama of Late Lal Chand, it is clear that the learned trial court has rightly took cognizance against him for the offences under Sections 465 and 468 IPC, while declining to accept the negative final report submitted before it by the concerned investigating officer. 2.10 Learned counsel thus submitted since the learned trial court has passed a well reasoned speaking order of cognizance, 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 05.07.2000, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, and accordingly, deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondent opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the complainant/petitioner. 3.1 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submitted that the learned revisional court, has rightly passed the impugned order whereby the learned court quashed 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. 3.2. 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 that on what basis the alleged Warrisnama was a forged and fabricated document, nor any legal provision was referred to substantiate the fabrication in question; moreover, as per the learned revisional court, the complainant/petitioner also failed to show as to on what basis the Waarisnama in question falls within the definition of a fabricated document, as per Sections 463 and 464 IPC. 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. 6. This Court further observes that the learned revisional court, vide the impugned order, has set aside the order of the learned trial court with the well reasoned and cogent findings, as pointed out hereinabove by the learned counsel for the accused- respondent, and rightly so. 7. Furthermore, the learned revisional court, in the impugned order, also recorded a clear and cogent reasoning in regard to the failure on the part of the complainant/petitioner to place on record any cogent evidence - factual or legal - so as to hold the accused- respondent guilty of the alleged offences. 8. This Court thus finds that the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court is a detailed and well reasoned speaking order, which has been passed after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidence placed on record before it. 9. 8. This Court thus finds that the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court is a detailed and well reasoned speaking order, which has been passed after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidence placed on record before it. 9. 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 05.07.2000 passed by the learned revisional court, whereby the cognizance order dated 19.01.1996 passed by the learned trial court was quashed and set aside. 10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.