JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition under Section 397. Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 26th September. 1983, passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate. Rajsamand in Criminal Case No. 9/1983, whereby charge was framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 447/379, Indian Penal Code. 2. Complainant Banney Singh, respondent No. 2 lodged a written report at Police Station, Rajnagar that a mining lease of marble with regard to plot No. 30 measuring 60 x 6O meters, situated near village, Kelwa in District Udaipur was in his name. He had executed a power of attorney in the name of the accused petitioners Lukman Hussain and Wazir Mohammad and that this power of attorney was terminated by a registered notice dated 7th March, 1982. It was alleged by Banney Singh that after the service of notice, for some time the accused petitioners did not take any stones from the mine, meaning thereby that they had stopped to make use of this power of attorney and, later on, after a period of 15 days the accused persons forcibly took away certain quantity of stones from the mines in an unauthorised manner and were also likely to take away more material i.e. stones worth two truck loads lying outside the mines and stones worth Rs. 25,000/-had already been taken away. It was the case of Banney Singh that he being the owner of mining lease, Lukman Hussain had no authority to take away the stones. On these premises, when the First Information Report was lodged by Banney Singh, police filed challan after investigation and the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate found that charge was made out against the accused persons and by his order dated 26th September, 1983 he framed the charge under Section 447/379 Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. Against this order dated 26th September, 1983; the present revision petition was filed on 2nd November, 1983 and it came before the Court on 3rd November 1983, on which date a show cause notice was issued as to why the revision petition should not be admitted and the record was also sent for immediately. Thereafter both the parties continued with the proceedings of this revision petition as leisurely as possible. Time was sought again and again and it was in the year 1985 that this revision petition was admitted after hearing Addl. Public Prosecutor. Thereafter both the parties continued with the proceedings of this revision petition as leisurely as possible. Time was sought again and again and it was in the year 1985 that this revision petition was admitted after hearing Addl. Public Prosecutor. Taking note of the fact that the trial was pending. the Registry noted on 30th April. 1985 that the matter may be listed for hearing on 20th May. 1985. Thereafter the case was listed for the first time on 3rd February, 1989 for hearing when it did not reach and thereafter on 1st December, 1992, the case was again adjourned on the joint request of both the sides, to be listed in January. 1993. Thereafter it has come before me today on 15th February, 1993. 3. The main argument of Shri Bishnoi is that this is essentially a dispute of civil nature. At one stage. according to the complainant, Banney Singh, himself the power of attorney had been executed in favour of the accused - petitioners. This power of attorney was also taken by the police during the course of investigation and the same is available on the record. At a latter stage, the complainant came out with the case that he had withdrawn this power of attorney on 7th March 1982. But that is a fact which may give rise to a civil dispute between the parties, but in no case it can entail any criminal liability against the accused petitioners, because they had actually embarked upon the works of taking away the stones on the basis of power of attorney which is an undisputed document. What will be the consequences of the withdrawal of power of attorney, as has been alleged, whether that withdrawal is valid or not, whether the conduct of the accused petitioners after the date of withdrawal was permissible in the eye of law or not are all matters which can be appropriately decided by a competent civil court, if at all the matter is sought to be adjudicated by the parties. Nevertheless, the allegations did not constitute any offence under Section 447/379, Indian Penal Code Shri V.R. Mehta, Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the revision petition has been filed on the question of want of material for the charge and as such, the revision petition cannot be entertained. Nevertheless, the allegations did not constitute any offence under Section 447/379, Indian Penal Code Shri V.R. Mehta, Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the revision petition has been filed on the question of want of material for the charge and as such, the revision petition cannot be entertained. I agree with Shri Mehta that if the allegation of want of material is levelled in a casual manner it does not make out a case for interference in the revision petition; but, here is a case in which I find that essentially and basically it is a civil dispute with regard to the legal position of the accused petitioners after the date of the withdrawal of the power of attorney and, thus, it is to be seen by a proper civil Court as to whether the withdrawal itself was valid or not. It is not the case in which the accused petitioners had started acting without any authority of law, rather. it is an admitted position and this is the case of the complainant himself that he had given power of attorney to them. Merely because the complainant alleges that he had withdrawn this power of attorney it cannot be said that the accused - petitioners have corn.flitted an offence under Section 447/379. Indian Penal Code and they cannot be fastened with any criminal liability. 4. I have gene through the impugned order passed by learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand and find that he has not applied his mind to this important aspect of the matter and proceeded to frame charge in a cursory Wanner and the order does not show the active application of mind on the question as to whether it was at all a case entailing any criminal liability on the accused petitioners and as to whether it was essentially a case of civil dispute between the parties with regard to the status of the accused petitioners alter the date of withdrawal of the power of attorney which itself was a subject mailer of question mark Besides this, I also find that this incident is of 1982-83. The revision petition against the order framing charge retrained pending in this Court for a period of ten years for which the accused petitioners. prosecution as well as the complainant, all are equally responsible. The revision petition against the order framing charge retrained pending in this Court for a period of ten years for which the accused petitioners. prosecution as well as the complainant, all are equally responsible. On such a matter, even otherwise it will be in appropriate to remand the matter and ask the trial Court to proceed with the trial now in such a matter after a long lapse of time of nearly 10 years when the mining lease itself may have expired, when the relevant evidence tray have also wither away. Allowing the trial now to commence and continue for years together will again, in try opinion, be a plain and simple abuse of process of the court, it may also be an exercise in futility. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the impugned order dated 26th September, 1983 passed in Criminal Case No. 9/1983 framing charge against the accused petitioners under Section 447/379, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 5. Shri Bishnoi submits that the accused - petitioners have given their bail bonds. If that be so, they need not to surrender to their bail bonds and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 9/1983 pending in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajsamand are hereby dropped and the same would so more remain pending against the accused petitioners.This revision petition is allowed as indicated above. *******