Short Note : 1. The short facts giving rise to this application are that the opponent complainant Gangaram filed a complaint against the applicants under section 406 I.P.C., Applicant No.2, is the son of applicant No.1. According to complainant, his daughter Lachhibai was married to applicant No.2 Kanwarlal, and thereafter, she lived with her husband. As his son had started squandering the property, he entrusted the she buffaloes to the applicants with the condition to return them back after 4 months. The two applicants did not return the she buffaloes inspite of demand and also driven away Lachhibai from their house. Thereafter, the complainant Gangaram served notice on the applicants, who also sent replies, in which demand of grazing charges to the tune of Rs.7,200 was made. The complainant Gangaram in his complaint also alleged that the applicants were earning profits out of the milk, as also from the cow-dung. 2. The complainant along with the complaint filed an application for seizure of the cattle, which was allowed. 3. The learned Magistrate after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, of the complainant, as also the pleas taken by the applicants and their statements came to the conclusion that the nature of dispute between the parties apparently was of a civil nature and prima facie no case under section 406 I.P.C. being made out, discharged the applicants, However while passing the order of discharge he found that the cattle seized should be retained by the complainant. Held: Admittedly, the cattle are seized from the possession of the applicants. The trial Court, as well as the Court of Sessions while exercising its revisional power, have held in favour of the applicants, that no criminal case, prima facie, is made out. It also appears that the nature of dispute between the parties is of a Civil nature. The trial Court thought it proper, after inquiry to discharge the applicants. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that ordinarily the applicants are entitled to the restoration of the property seized from their possession, the power given under section 452 Cr. P. Code to decide the question of possession is discretionary. It is manifest that the criminal Courts are not expected to try civil cases, the object of the section is only to provide a summary method for restoring the status-quo. P. Code to decide the question of possession is discretionary. It is manifest that the criminal Courts are not expected to try civil cases, the object of the section is only to provide a summary method for restoring the status-quo. Therefore, an order under this section does not decide the question of ownership of the property. It decides only the right of possession till a civil Court has decided the question of ownership. 4. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that the applicants are entitled to the possession of the cattle seized from their custody. Revision allowed.