JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition to reverse the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Cuttack, setting aside an order of dismissal passed u/s 208 Code of Criminal Procedure, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kendrapara, and directing a further enquiry. The Petitioner filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Kendrapara alleging that on the 25th February, 1956, the opposite party cut and carried away the paddy crops raised by him on a piece of land which he had taken on settlement from the Canal authorities. He, however, admitted that he had filed a Civil suit for damages against some members of the opposite party, in respect of wrongful acts committed by them over the same land on or about the 6th of July 1955. The Sub-divisional Magistrate therefore thought that this was essentially a civil dispute and that the complainant should seek his redress in the Civil Court. The learned Sessions Judge however, thought that as the alleged date of occurrence in the criminal case was different from the date on which damage was said to have been caused to the complainants paddy seedlings which was the cause of action for the Civil suit, the Sub-divisional Magistrate should not have dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. As already pointed out, the cause of action for the civil suit was the alleged damage to the paddy seedlings of the complainant on the 6th July 1955 at the commencement of the cultivating season. It was conceded by counsel for both sides during their arguments that the defence of the Defendants in the civil suit was that the lands were cultivated by them and that they had raised the paddy seedlings. The success of the complainants suit for damages would, therefore, depend on his ability to establish that he was in actual possession of the disputed property. It is true that the date of occurrence in the criminal case was the 25th February 1956, when the crops were ripe for harvest. But the question as to who raised the crops, which is an essential point for decision in the criminal case, was also the most essential point for decision in the civil suit. It is true that the date of occurrence in the criminal case was the 25th February 1956, when the crops were ripe for harvest. But the question as to who raised the crops, which is an essential point for decision in the criminal case, was also the most essential point for decision in the civil suit. Moreover, the very fact that the complainant went to the Civil Court for redress when the opposite party damaged his paddy seedlings in July 1955, would show that this is essentially a civil dispute between the parties and the necessary criminal intention or knowledge, contemplated in Section 426, Indian Penal Code, is absent. If such intention or knowledge was absent in July 1955, it is difficult to say that it was present in February 1956, when the members of the opposite party removed the complainants crops, so as to justify the complainant seeking his redress in the criminal court. 3. In these circumstances, it is highly desirable that the dispute which has already been taken cognizance of by the Civil court should be pursued there. I would therefore set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and restore that of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, directing the dismissal of the complaint. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed