JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Cr. PC has been filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the accused-petitioners for the offence under s. 447 IPC in the Court of learned Addl. Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur in Cr. Case No. 97 of 1991, State v. Sheoji and another . 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are : that the land bearing Khasras No. 952 and 971 situated at village Sarsop, Tehsii Chauthkabrawada. District Sawai Madhopur was attached and Naib Telisildar Cbauthkabrawada was appointed as Receiver by the learned Assistant Collector cum Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur vide his order dated 5-3-1986. Thereafter, this land in question was auctioned for cultivation in the month of July 1990 for one year ending by April 194l. The auction was finalised for Samvat Year 2047 in favour of one Ram Niwas for a sum of Rs. 6900/- and that amount was deposited by Ram Niwas on 10.7-1990 vide Receipt Annexure.2. The possession of the field was ordered to be handed over to him vide order Annexure-3 dated 12-7-1990. Thereafter, it was reported by the Patwari that Ram Niwas had sown Sarson (Mustard) crop on this land. Be that as it may, it is alleged that on 18.7.1990 the Assistant Collector cum Magistrate did not accept the auction bid given by Ram Niwas and ordered that fields be re-auctioned. Against that order, Ram Niwas filed a revision and the learned District Judge, Sawai Madhopur while refusing to pass any stay order against the order dated 18-7-1990 passed by the learned Assistant Collector cum Magistrate dismissed that revision vide his order dated 20.1-1991, Thereafter, S.B. Cr Misc. Petition No 284 of 1991 was filed before this Court under s. 482 Cr. PC and this Court vide its order dated 1-2-1991 has stayed the operation of the order dated 30-1-1991 passed in Cr. Revision No 46/90 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur and has further directed that the Naib Tebsildar shall not take any reduction proceedings for the purposes of cultivation of the land bearing Khasras No. 952 and 971 of village Sarsop. The order dated 1-2-1991 passed by this Court was further clarified vide its order dated 13-3.1991, to the effect that Ram Niwas was allowed to harvest his crop. The order dated 1-2-1991 passed by this Court was further clarified vide its order dated 13-3.1991, to the effect that Ram Niwas was allowed to harvest his crop. The petitioners have there-fore, submitted that this prosecution which has been launched against them should be quashed. 3. Mr. R.S. Rathore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the crop was auctioned in favour of Ram Niwas and it was he, who had sown the crop and was permitted by this Court to harvest his crop. According to him, if any body had any grouse about harvesting the crop, that could be to Ram Niwas, the auction bidder and not anybody else and, therefore, these proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioners deserve to be quashed as they are mis-conceived. 4. Mr S.R. Yadav, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has, however, contended that the land was auctioned for the Samvat Year 2047 and the alleged re-auction was going to take place for the Samvat Year 2048 and, therefore, the impugned order was proper and it deserves to be sustained. 5. Actually, this crop was sown by Ram Niwas. May be that it has been sown through these petitioners but it was that crop which was allowed to be harvested by this Court vide order dated 13-3.1991 passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 284 of 1991. Actually, re-auction was ordered against this very auction because the learned Assistant Collector cum Magistrate did not approve the auction bid of Ram Niwas, which was finalised in his favour on 5-7.1991 and, therefore. it cannot be said that the fresh auction proceedings relate to some other year. Thus, to this extent, the submission of Mr. S.R. Yadav cannot be sustained. 6. I am in total agreement with Mr. Rathore that the land was auctioned for cultivation in favour of Ramniwas and it was he who had sown this crop and he was allowed to harvest this Crop by this Court vide its order dated 13-3.1991 passed in Cr. Misc. Petition No 284 of 1991 and the petitioners have harvested this crop on behalf of Ramniwas and, therefore, no criminal prosecution can be launched against these petitioners. 7. Under these circumstances. the impugned order dated 11.3-1991 passed by the learned Addl. Munsif & Judl. Misc. Petition No 284 of 1991 and the petitioners have harvested this crop on behalf of Ramniwas and, therefore, no criminal prosecution can be launched against these petitioners. 7. Under these circumstances. the impugned order dated 11.3-1991 passed by the learned Addl. Munsif & Judl. Magistrate No. 2, Sawai Madhopur taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under s. 447 JPC deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, this Petition under s 432 Cr. PC is allowed and the impugned order dated 11-3.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Munsif & Judl Magistrate No. 2, SAW/1 Madhopur is quashed for the reasons aforesaid.Petition allowed. *******