JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated July 18, 1285 of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Ladnu, so far as it took cognizance of the offence against accused-petitioner also. Under the aforesaid order the learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence against the accused petitioners under sections 323, 109 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as Laduram, the then ASI of Police Station Ladnu is concerned, cognizance of offence under sections 409, 342 and 323 IPC was taken. In this revision petition we are not presently concerned with that part of the order under which cognizance has been taken against Laduram and, therefore, I will confine myself to the order taking cognizance against the accused petitioners. 2. A complaint was filed by Moolchand son of Jagannath Soni, the non-petitioner Moolchand (complainant) and his brother Govindram and their ancestral immovable property in village Jaswantgarh on Sujangarh Road. In that property there old two `pucca' Kothas' and a kitchen constructed. Earlier there was a boundary wall but it had been damaged at places and, therefore, on October 4, 1984, the complainant Moolchand had placed stone slabs and thus a boundary of stone slabs was made. But the two accused petitioners along with ASI Laduram conspired amongst themselves, had hatched a conspiracy to illegally dispossess the complainant from his immovable property and Laduram sent two constables through whom the complainant was called along with his son and others. There, in the presence of the two accused-petitioners, ASI asked the complainant to vacate the premises or else he (the complainant Moolchand) will be arrested. The complainant gave out how could he vacate the premises which were his ancestral property. Laduram at this abused the complainant and others and started beating. The complainant was confined in the `havalat' and it was only in the morning that a case under sections 107 and 151 Cr. PC was registered and the complainant was arrested. It too also the case of the complainant, in the complaint, that at the time of his search a golden chain was also taken but the same was not noted in the search memh and despite demand Laduram did not return it. In support of the complaint, the complainant examined himself under s. 200 Cr. PC and the statements of a few witnesses were also recorded under s. 202 Cr. In support of the complaint, the complainant examined himself under s. 200 Cr. PC and the statements of a few witnesses were also recorded under s. 202 Cr. P.C. No injury report in support of the complaint was filed either of the complainant of any body else. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the accused petitioner under s. 328/109 IPC. 3. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that taking the complaint, the statement of the complainant under s. 200 Cr. PC and of his witnesses under s. 202 Cr.PC on their face value, there were no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused petitioners under s. 323/109 IPC. According to the learned counsel even assuming that the accused petitioners were present at the Police Station. It cannot be said that they opted the commission of the offence under s. 323 IPC by Laduram. There is no allegation as far a the accused petitioners are concerned that they also gave beating to the complaint or any body else at the police station. The only allegations are that they were present. It is not even alleged that they instigated the commission of the offence by Laduram, who being ASI of Police, in my opinion never needed any instigation by any body much less by the accused petitioners. Under s. 107 IPC a person abats the doing of the thing which instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing or that thing, or intentionally aids, by any set or illegal omission the doing of that thing. On the facts of the case, no case of abatement under s. 107 IPC so far as the accused petitioners are concerned, is made out. 4. Thus, in my opinion, after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and the witnesses under s 202 Gr PC the Magistrate could not be of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused petitioners under s. 328/109 IPC. 4. Thus, in my opinion, after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and the witnesses under s 202 Gr PC the Magistrate could not be of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused petitioners under s. 328/109 IPC. In my opinion it was a case where on the consideration of the statements on oath as aforesaid the Magistrate could only be of the opinion that there is no ground for proceeding I against the accused petitioners under section 323/109 IPC and therefore, he should | have dismissed the complaint under s. 233 Cr PC and should have refused to | issue a process. It may be stated here that I have purposely avoided to express any opinion in so far as other accused Laduram ASI is concerned. 5. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate so far as he took cognizance of offence under s. 303/109 IPC against the accused petitioners is quashed and the complaint against them is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******