Judgment Sobhagmal Jain, J.-This petition under Section 482, CrPC is for quashing the order of the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal, dated April 17, 1989, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 447 and 379, IPC against the petitioners, who are eleven in number. 2. Thecase relates to the incident alleged to have taken place during the night of Nov. 18/19, 1987. A report of the occurrence was lodged by Masum Ali at the Police Station, Bhinmal, on Nov. 19, 1987. The case of the complainant, shortly put, was that the was in possession of the fields, bearing Khasra Nos. 1033, 1034, 1035 and 1036, comprising 25 Bighas and 6 Biswas of land. It was alleged that in the morning of November 19, 1987, he found that the stone-slabs (Chhinnas) had been removed from the field bearing Khasra No. 1035, during the night and placed in Khasra No. 1036. On enquiry, he found that 30-40 persons had entered his field. He named 13 persons in the said report. The names of any of the witnesses or the source through whom he came to know of the names of the named persons, was not disclosed in the report. After investigation, the police submitted a final report to the Magistrate at Bhinmal, stating that the complainant was not in possession of the field and that the present report had been filed just to counter the cross case No. 120/1987. The investigation revealed that the present case was false. This report was filed on December 2, 1987. During investigation, only two witnesses, namely, Masum Ali, the complainant himself and Mohammed Ali, gave their statements before the police. Masum Ali’s statement was based on hearsay, while Mohammed Ali, did not disclose any names of the persons who entered the field. A notice was then given to the complainant, who filed a protest petition and the learned Magistrate, on November 28, 1988, directed the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bhinmal, to investigate the case. Thereafter, five more witnesses, viz., Hamirsingh, Geega Ram, Madha, Bagdaram and Immtiyaz Ali were interrogated by the police on December 14 and 15, 1988. The Deputy Superintendent of Police again gave a final report on December 21, 1988, stating that the case instituted by the complainant was found to be false, on investigation. The complainant, Masum Ali, again filed a protest petition on February 9, 1989. The Deputy Superintendent of Police again gave a final report on December 21, 1988, stating that the case instituted by the complainant was found to be false, on investigation. The complainant, Masum Ali, again filed a protest petition on February 9, 1989. The learned Magistrate, by the order dated April 17, 1989, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 447 and 379, IPC against 13 persons including the petitioners. A revision by the accused was taken before the Sessions Judge, Jalore, who, by the judgment dated June 13, 1989, dismissed the same. Dissatisfied, the petitioners have now filed the present petition in this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that taking the prosecution case on its face value, the case against the accused for the offences under Sections 447 and 379, IPC is not, even prima facie, made out. He has submitted that it is a case of harassment of the accused as there is not even a remotest chance of the accused being convicted of the offences. 4. I find substancein the submission made by the Counsel for the petitioners. Twice the investigation was conducted and both times, the investigating agency reported that the complainant’s case was false. To constitute an offence under Section 447, IPC the prosecution has to show that the accused entered the property which was in possession of another person. For the offence under Section 379, I.P.C, it has to be shown that the accused removed some removable property out of the possession of some person, without his consent. Granting for the purposes of this case that the field bearing Khasra No. 1035 was in the possession of the complainant although there is serious controversy about the same, the second ingredient that it were the accused who had entered the field of the complainant, is completely absent. Admittedly, the complainant was not present in the field during the night the alleged trespass was committed. I was taken through the statements of all the seven witnesses including the complainant to show that none except Hamirsingh has said a word that any of the accused entered the field or removed or took away any goods from that place. Admittedly, the complainant was not present in the field during the night the alleged trespass was committed. I was taken through the statements of all the seven witnesses including the complainant to show that none except Hamirsingh has said a word that any of the accused entered the field or removed or took away any goods from that place. The statement of Masum Ali was recorded by the police on November 19, 1987 and that of Mohammed Ali on November 23, 1987, but none of them stated that they saw the accused entering the field or removing anything from there. It was on December 14, 1988, i.e. after more than a year, that Hamirsingh, for the first time, stated in his statement before the police that Khudabux and his sons, whose names he did not know, and Heera and his sons, whose names, also, he did not know, entered the field of Masum Ali. The other four witnesses, viz., Geega Ram, Madha, Bagda Ram and Immtiyaz Ali, whose statements were recorded on December 15, 1989, did not say a word that these accused entered the field of the complainant or committed theft of any article belonging to him. To put the accused to trial for the offence under S.447, I.P.C, on the sole statement of Hamirsingh, recorded after twelve months, would, to my mind, be a sheer waste of the Court’s time. The pendency of case in the Courts has assumed staggring proportions. The arrears are increasing day by day with no sign to recline. The situation is already alarming. The trial of such frivolous cases to continue would add more to the problem with no useful purpose whatsoever. Hamirsingh’s name was not mentioned in the First Information Report. Till right up to December 14, 1988, when Hamirsingh was produced before the police, his name was no where mentioned by the complainant. To me, it appears to be a clear case of harassment of the accused and an abuse of the process of law. It would not advance the cause of justice but rather defeat it. In my opinion, it is a fit and proper case where the cognizance, taken by the learned Magistrate, should be quashed. 5. To me, it appears to be a clear case of harassment of the accused and an abuse of the process of law. It would not advance the cause of justice but rather defeat it. In my opinion, it is a fit and proper case where the cognizance, taken by the learned Magistrate, should be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482, CrPC, filed by the accused-petitioners, is allowed the orders of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal dated April 17, 1989 and that of the Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated June 13, 1989, are set-aside.