JUDGMENT 1. - This petition u/s. 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of complainant-Sri Kishan against the order dated 6.11.1990 delivered in Criminal Revision No. 3/87 by Sessions Judge, Churu by which revision filed by Swadesh Kumar non-petitioner herein was accepted and order of cognizance dated 3.10.1986 issued by M.J.M., Ratangarh was set aside. 2. The submissions of the learned counsel are that before the Sessions Judge Churu in its Revision No. 3/87 complainant-Sri Kishan was not made party and, therefore, without giving opportunity of hearing order adverse to him was passed by the Court below causing miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon AIR 1967 SC 401 . 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the non-petitioner has supported the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the judgment referred which is not identical to facts with the matter at hand. Before the Apex Court the matter was with regard to delivery of stolen property in which the claimant could be either accused or complainant and not State Government. In the matter at hand, the controversy was not with regard to delivery of stolen property, therefore, the above pronouncement had no application. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel was that the trial Court has taken cognizance for an offence u/ss. 457 and 380 IPC against Swadesh Kumar by assigning cogent and convincing reason and the revisional Court in a casual and caviller manner has set aside the order causing miscarriage of justice. To appreciate the contentions raised above brief factual aspects needs to be mentioned. 6. At Churu there is a joint Haveli of Asha Rain, upon his death his three sons Kanihya Lal, Ram Pratap and Nand Lal had ⅓rd share each in the above Haveli. Sri Kishan is the son of Kanihya Lal and was doing business at Calcutta whereas Nand Lal's son Swadesh Kumar is residing in the impugned Haveli. Mohan Lal and Sheo Ratan sons of Ram Pratap were residing at Calcutta and running business. A property dispute for the above Haveli was also between the parties. Sri Kishan is the son of Kanihya Lal and was doing business at Calcutta whereas Nand Lal's son Swadesh Kumar is residing in the impugned Haveli. Mohan Lal and Sheo Ratan sons of Ram Pratap were residing at Calcutta and running business. A property dispute for the above Haveli was also between the parties. Sri Kishan was informed at Calcutta that locks of the doors of his share in Haveli was found broken in December 1983, 3 days thereafter, Sri Kishan came to Churu and lodged an FIR on 13.12.1983 in which also the list of articles so stolen was not mentioned, only name of Swadesh Kumar has been mentioned as the person who has broken up the locks and had removed the articles. The above list was submitted after 8 months. After usual investigation, police submitted Final Report as no case was made out according to the SHO. Upon protest petition filed by Sri Kishan, learned trial Court by its order dated 3.10.1986 has taken cognizance against Nand Lal for offences u/ss. 457 & 380 IPC which was set aside by the revisional Court. 7. For constituting offences u/ss. 457 & 380 IPC some evidence should have been there, as to who removed the articles from the rooms which were in the possession of the complainant. There is not an iota of evidence available on the file. The trial Court simply on some assumptions and surmises came to the conclusion that articles were found in a room in which articles of the accused were also lying. Similarly, some of the articles were found in a room door of which was locked by two persons and key of one of the lock was with the accused. Such grounds were not sufficient prima facie to implicate a person for offences u/ss. 457 & 380 IPC and the revisional Court has rightly came to the conclusion that there were property dispute between the parties with regard to joint Haveli and matter was more or less of civil nature than of criminal.This Court while sitting on revisional side cannot interfere unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. I do not find any perversity or gross illegality in the impugned order nor there were any jurisdictional error. There is no merit in this revision, the same stands dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******