Judgment Uday Sinha, J. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.10 1979 whereby he issued processes against the petitioners for having committed offences under sections 379 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On 6.6.1979, Giyasuddin Sheikh filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, first class, Raj Mahal, against the petitioners. The substance of the complaint was that the complainant owned and possessed mango garden bearing plot no. 1171 in village Begumganj. According to the complainant this plot of land had fallen to the share of the complainant's father on partition between the complainant and his brother. On 2.6.1979 the petitioners are alleged to have raided the mango orchard in a body and plucked and removed mongoes therefrom. The accused were alleged to be armed with lathi, bhala, pharsa etc. The complainant suffered loss of Rs.1500/- on account of the act of the accused. When the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation he stated that in the Parcha the names of Nazir (father of petitioners 24 and 25) and grandfather of complainant Sagiruddin had been mentioned. Accused Rahamatullah, petitioner No. 24, and Rahim were stated in the complaint as being of the same family as complainant. The complainant is grandson of Sagiruddin. According to the complainant the orchard had been partitioned and it had fallen to the share of the complainant's grandfather at the said partition. That in short is the prosecution case. 3. After receipt of the complaint the learned Magistrate sent the case for investigation to Circle Inspector. The Circle Inspector reported that the allegation of the complainant was unfounded. The report dated 20.6.1979 is Annexure-3 to this petition. The order sheet of the learned Magistrate shows that the complainant protested before the learned Magistrate and prayed for rejecting the report of the Circle Inspector. By order dated 6.7.1979 the learned Magistrate directed the Circle Inspector to forward the evidence recorded by him. The statements recorded by the Circle Inspector not having been received the complainant moved the learned Magistrate for sending the matter for investigation to some other authority. The prayer was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 21.8.1979. By order dated 30.6.1979 the learned Magistrate recalled the file from the Circle Inspector and directed the Sub-Registrar to investigate into the matter. The statements recorded by the Circle Inspector not having been received the complainant moved the learned Magistrate for sending the matter for investigation to some other authority. The prayer was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 21.8.1979. By order dated 30.6.1979 the learned Magistrate recalled the file from the Circle Inspector and directed the Sub-Registrar to investigate into the matter. The Sub-Registrar recorded the statements of witnesses and recommended that the accused should be put on trial as prima-facie case appeared to have been made out. On receipt of the report of the Sub-Registrar the learned Magistrate issued processes by order dated 11.10.1979. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.10.1979 have moved this Court by the present application for quashing the processes issued by the learned Magistrate. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is based upon incorrect and incomplete facts furnished to him by the Complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated on affidavit that plot no. 1171 which is the plot number of the orchard in question was recorded exclusively in the name of Nazir Biswas, father of Rahmatullah, petitioner no. 24. In terms of section 25 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 entries in record of rights are conclusive proof of rights and customs recorded therein. In the instant case Annexure-6, which is a copy of the Khatian entry, shows that 1171, the disputed plot, belonged exclusively to the father of petitioner no. 24. This fact was not stated in the complaint. In fact in the complaint it was stated in blatant manner that the mango garden bearing plot no. 1171 belonged to Maqsood Ali, father of complainant Giyasuddin, on partition from his brother According to the petitioners Maqsood Ali had no brother. If that was so the story of partition between Maqsood Ali and his brother must fan to the ground. In the statement on solemn affirmation the complainant stated that in the Parcha, which is same as copy of record of rights, the name of Nazir and Sagiruddin has been mentioned. Sagiruddin was grand father of the complainant, Giyasuddin, and brother of Nazir Biswas. The petitioners have stated on affidavit the geneology of Sobharat Sheikh father of Nazir Biswas and Sagiruddin. Sagiruddin was grand father of the complainant, Giyasuddin, and brother of Nazir Biswas. The petitioners have stated on affidavit the geneology of Sobharat Sheikh father of Nazir Biswas and Sagiruddin. If the lands are recorded Sagiruddin and Nazir Biswas the learned Magistrate may not have issued processes had he been aware of the correct state of affiairs. I, therefore, consider it expedient that the matter should be remanded back for the learned Magistrate to apply his mind to the materials on record as also the records of right. I would have allowed the application strightaway but my conclusions, recorded tentatively for the disposal of this application, are based upon the geneology set out in paragraph 4 of this petition. But this geneology may not be correct. I have therefore, remanded the case to the learned Magistrate for persuing his research on the lines indicated by me above. 5. For the reasons, stated above, the application is allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.10.1979 is hereby quashed. The learned Magistrate will now call upon the complainant to produce the original record of rights or certified copy thereof and then apply itself to the question whether processes should issue against the petitioner or not. The case is remanded back to the Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, for disposal according to law afresh. The learned Magistrate will permit the accused to produce either the original khatian entry or certified copy thereof if the complainant does not produce it in court. Application allowed.