Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 012.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadara (for short the revisional Court hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2003, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 05.09.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadara (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 439 of 2003 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant criminal misc. petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order of the revisional Court as well as of the trial Court. 3. By order dated 05.09.2003, the trial Court took the cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 427, IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and issued the process against the petitioners. On careful perusal of the order passed by the trial Court dated 05.09.2003 it appears that non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Lichhama Devi, the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Malkhera lodged first information report against the petitioners and 15-20 others being FIR No. 91 of 2003 alleging therein that a boundary wall around the graveyard was constructed by bricks in a Famine Relief Work, which was alleged to have been damaged by the present petitioners and 15-20 boys. The police investigated the matter and recorded the statements of complainant Smt. Lichhama Devi, Balwant Singh, Bhagatram, Vijaykumar, Sahabram, Rangilal, Vinod Kumar, Balwansingh, Hanuma and Satyanarayan. The complainant in her statement under Section 161, CrPC categorically stated that on 13.06.2003 at about 12 Noon, while she was getting the work of boundary wall done through labourers, the present petitioners and 15-20 others came on the spot and wanted to break the boundary wall measuring 200 ft. in length and 7 ft. in height, they were prevented, but ultimately succeeded in causing damage to 50 feet boundary wall. At that time, Vijay Kumar Jat and Bhagatram Jat wer present on the spot. 4. I have carefully gone through the statements of Vijay Kumar Jat and Bhagatram Jat apart from the statements of witnesses noticed above. in length and 7 ft. in height, they were prevented, but ultimately succeeded in causing damage to 50 feet boundary wall. At that time, Vijay Kumar Jat and Bhagatram Jat wer present on the spot. 4. I have carefully gone through the statements of Vijay Kumar Jat and Bhagatram Jat apart from the statements of witnesses noticed above. Both these witnesses did not state that it were the petitioners who broke the boundary wall or caused the damage to the public property; on the contrary, the witnesses noticed above all stated that they had an impression on the ground that earlier the petitioners objected for raising the boundary wall and, therefore, the petitioners might have caused damage to the boundary wall. There is evidence of witnesses who clearly stated that there was a fight between the Bulls in the field of one Rangilal and they collided with the boundary wall resulting thereby the boundary wall fell down at a distance of 4 Poundas i.e., approximately 12-13 feet in length. The trial Court in the order impugned relied on the statements of complainant Lichhama Devi, Satyanarayan, Hanuman, Balwant and Sahabram. 5. I have carefully gone through the statements of these witnesses. Almost all the witnesses except the complainant stated that the boundary wall which was fresh was broken due to colliding of the bulls to the boundary wall and not that the present petitioners caused damage to the boundary wall. Thus, it appears that the trial Court has misread the evidence i.e., the statements of witnesses noticed above while taking cognizance of the offence. On close scrutiny of the entire police papers and the statements of the witnesses noticed above, it no where appears that it were the petitioners who caused damage to the public property or mischief to the property. In the circumstances therefore, the trial Court fell in error in taking cognizance of the offences noticed above against the petitioners and issuing process against them. The revisional Court also failed to consider the material in right perspective; on the contrary on misreading of the statements of witnesses affirmed the order of the trial Court taking cognizance. From the material placed before trial Court, prima-facie no case is made out for proceeding further in the matter against the petitioners. Thus, the orders passed by the Courts below are nothing but abuse of process of Court and suffer from manifest injustice. From the material placed before trial Court, prima-facie no case is made out for proceeding further in the matter against the petitioners. Thus, the orders passed by the Courts below are nothing but abuse of process of Court and suffer from manifest injustice. 6. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The orders impugned passed by the revisional Court as well as by the trial Court are set aside. The proceedings against the petitioners stand quashed. The stay application stands disposed of