JUDGMENT 1. - By this revision, the petitioners who are father and sons seek to assail the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 9.1.98 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 379 IPC. 2. Initially this was filed as a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. wherein vide order dated 24.3.98 notice was issued and record of the learned trial court was also requisitioned. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application for treating the petition u/s. 482 Cr.PC. as a criminal revision petition, which application was allowed vide order dated 18.4.2000 and the Registry reported it to 10 be within limitation. Then vide order dated 13.7.2000 it was admitted. On the stay application, vide order dated 24.3.98 only notice was issued but since the record had been requisitioned, the proceedings automatically were held up. In these circumstances, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main revision petition itself was finally heard at the stage. 3. The brief background of the case as appears from the record and as pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 1.1.96 a first report was lodged by one Shankar Lal s/o Shri Gauri Dutt against the three named petitioners and some 5-7 unknown persons alleging interalia that informant had purchased one plot in question on 17.2.95 from Gauri Shankar, the power 20 of attorney holder of Smt. Santosh, obtained possession and is in possession since that date. It was then alleged that according to the site plan, in the north and set side adjacent to the house of Vimla Devi, stone slabs were embedded, while on the sought these averments it was alleged that on 1.1.96 at about 10 a.m. one Jeevan Ram informed him that the stone slabs of the said plot have 25 been removed in the night by the accused persons, the door has been broken. Whereupon he went on the site and found the accused persons to have trespassed, and broken the door, and removed the stone slabs. It was also alleged that some 4-5 stone slabs along with door and lock were stolen away, while some 7-8 slabs were broken. It was also given out that in the civil litigation instituted by the accused Dana Ram against Gauri Shankar and Santosh, the temporary injunction application has been dismissed negativing Dana Ram's possession. It was also alleged that some 4-5 stone slabs along with door and lock were stolen away, while some 7-8 slabs were broken. It was also given out that in the civil litigation instituted by the accused Dana Ram against Gauri Shankar and Santosh, the temporary injunction application has been dismissed negativing Dana Ram's possession. On this report a case u/s. 447, 427 and 379 IPC was registered and ultimately a final report No. 39 of 96 (Adam Vakua Civil nature) was submitted. Thereupon the informant on 24.10.96 submitted a protest petition. Then on 26.10.96 the complainant filed a few documents and the case was fixed for evidence on 28.10.96. However, after some adjournments the evidence was recorded and ultimately vide order date. 21.3.97 the learned trial court found that there are no sufficient gmunds to proceed against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences, and therefore, the protest petition was dismissed and the final report was accepted. Against this order the complainant filed a revision which was allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 10.6.97 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order in view of the observations made in the order and also to provide opportunity to the complainant to produce further evidence if he so desires. After this remand, the learned trial court recorded further evidence of the complainant and Ultimately on 9.1.98, after considering the entire material on record passed a fresh order taking cognizance as above. 4. Against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 10.6.97 remanding the matter the petitioner filed another Revision Petition No. 621/2000 which after hearing learned counsel for the parties has already been dismissed summarily by me today itself as I did not find any ground to interfere with that order. 5. The question, therefore, is as to whether the impugned order which has been passed by the learned trial court after remand and after recording the statement of Gauri Shanker, the seller requires any interference or that the learned trial court can be said to be in error in holding that there are sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners. 5. The question, therefore, is as to whether the impugned order which has been passed by the learned trial court after remand and after recording the statement of Gauri Shanker, the seller requires any interference or that the learned trial court can be said to be in error in holding that there are sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners. I need not speak much on the details of the appreciation of the material on record lest it might prejudice either of the parties but this much does clearly appear from the record that the documents on record do prima facie show that the petitioners were not in possession of the land, the complainant was not a, party to the civil litigation between the petitioner Dana Ram, Santosh and Gauri Shanker. Apart from the fact that the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner Dana Ram finally stands negated and the material on & record prima facie establishes the complainant's possession so also the material on record prima facie shows the marks of removal of stone slabs, door so also breaking of stone slabs. In these circumstances the learned Magistrate clearly appears to be correct in coming to the conclusion that there is good ground for proceeding against the petitioners for the & aforesaid offences. 6. Consequently, I do not find any force in the revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The record of the learned trial court be returned forthwith with a direction to expeditiously decide the matter in accordance with law as the matter is very old.Revision dismissed. *******