Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC, the petitioner-complainant has challenged the order dated 11.2001 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Communal Riots) (for short the trial Court) whereby the trial Court accepted the negative final report submitted by the police after investigation on an FIR lodged by the petitioner being FIR No. 251 dated 16.1990. Aggrieved by the order of accepting the negative final report, the petitioner-complainant has filed the instant revision petition. Earlier also the revision petition was dismissed in default. However, it was subsequently restored. Today also, no one appears for the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the contesting respondent. Perused the order impugned. By an elaborate and well reasoned order, the trial Court accepted the negative final report filled by the police. The complainant filed an FIR stating therein that the land measuring 10 Bigha of Khasra No. 147 village Mandli Khurd was converted to urban land and given to Gram Panchayat, Mandiya vide order dated 111.1974. The Gram Panchayat, Mandiya sold plot No. 13 to Vijay Raj, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 to 6 on 16.5.1977. It appears that the order dated 111.1974 was subsequently cancelled by the Additional Collector vide order dated 17.1980. However, respondents No. 2 to 6 challenged the order before this Court by way of writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4096/1991, which came to be decided in favour of respondents. The allegation against respondents No. 2 to 6 is that subsequently they sold the plot No. 13 to Bhanwar Singh, Devi Singh, Nathu Singh, Prakash , Daulal, Giriraj, Rameshchandra, Peerdan Singh, Smt. Jyoti and Uttam Chand by way of agreement to sale for consideration of Rs. 20,000/-and thus, committed the offence of cheating. From the material placed on record by the Investigating Officer, the police came to the conclusion that no offence of cheating prima facie is made out and the trial Court found no ground to proceed against respondents No. 2 to 6 and accordingly, accepted the negative final report filed by the police. At any rate, the petitioner is none but a busy body. He has no interest absolutely in the subject land and, therefore, the petitioner has not been cheated by respondents No. 2 to 6 . 3. I have carefully gone through the order impugned. At any rate, the petitioner is none but a busy body. He has no interest absolutely in the subject land and, therefore, the petitioner has not been cheated by respondents No. 2 to 6 . 3. I have carefully gone through the order impugned. For the reasons assigned by the trial Court, the negative final report cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or perverse. On the contrary, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition lacks merit. According, it is dismissed.