sisters. Petitioner is neither a witness to the agreement, nor is he a beneficiary. It is only after petitioner’s wife filed a civil suit for specific performance that the present FIR was lodged. It is contended that though it was mentioned in the initial FIR that the signature was forged, but when the signature was sent to the F.S.L., the report by the F.S.L. stated that the documents bear the signature of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant changed her stand and stated that she was forced to sign the agreement to sale. It is contended that the matter is being tossed from one court to another. Police submitted a negative final report and then a protest petition was filed by the complainant. Vide order dated 03.11.2006, the trial court rejected the negative final report and directed the police to submit report after considering the F.S.L. report. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred a revision petition which was decided on 22.01.2007 by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4 and order dated 03.11.2006 was set aside and the trial court was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Chapter-XV of Cr.P.C. Learned trial court thereafter vide order dated 28.04.2007 accepted the negative final report and rejected the protest petition filed by the complainant. 3. Aggrieved by the acceptance of negative final report and rejection of the protest petition, complainant preferred a revision petition, which was decided by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide order dated 13.02.2008. Revision petition filed by the complainant was allowed. Order dated 24.08.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.10, Jaipur City, Jaipur was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate to give opportunity of hearing to the complainant and take cognizance against the petitioner.
