JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.PC., the petitioners have assailed the order dated 6.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 17.1.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh was dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court. 3. A complaint was filed by non-petitioner No. 2 against the petitioners for the offences under sections 448, 447, 504 and 323 I.P.C. before the trial court, which was sent for investigation to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police, after investigation, did not find the case against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 448, 447 and 323 IPC, however, found a prima facie case for the offence under section 504 IPC. Since the offence under section 504 IPC is non - cognizable, therefore non-petitioner No. 2 was served with the notice. He appeared in person before the trial court. He did not wish to file protest petition and argue the matter on FR. The trial court by order dated 17.1.2002, took the cognizance of the offences under sections 504 and 447 1. PC. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the property in question is jointly owned and there cannot be any evidence of criminal trespass by co - sharer or the joint holders of the property. It is further contended that neither in the complaint nor in the statements recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.PC., the actual words alleged to have been used by the petitioners has been stated and, therefore, the offence under section 504 IPC is not made out. Even essential ingredients for the offence under section 504 IPC is not made out from the material placed on record. It is contended that there is no evidence that the petitioners gave provocation to the complainant intending or knowing it to likely that such provocation will cause him to breach the public peace or to commit any other offence. 5. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Dr. It is contended that there is no evidence that the petitioners gave provocation to the complainant intending or knowing it to likely that such provocation will cause him to breach the public peace or to commit any other offence. 5. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Dr. Suresh Chandra Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 276 wherein this Court held that the complainant and witness did not state in their statements what actual words were used by the accused and, therefore, it was held that the trial court was perfectly justified in not taking cognizance for the offence under section 504 IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 and submits that the allegations in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. He has also contended that the complaint filed by non-petitioner No. 2 suffers from mala fide to the extent that he has been instituting the false cases against the petitioner one after another. He has given the details of the cases instituted by the non-petitioner No. 2 against the petitioners being FIRs. No. 337 dated 10.11.2004, 347 dated 22.11.2000 and No. 49 dated 22.2.2001 all police station, Rajgarh, in two of the cases i.e. FIR No. 347 dated 22.11.2000 and No. 49 dated 22.2.2001, the police has already filed the negative final report, even in FIR No. 337, the police filed the negative final report. However, a protest petition was accepted. 7. Learned counsel submits that the parties have gone to the civil suit and the suit filed by non-petitioner No. 2 Chander Prakash against the present petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Rajgarh for permanent injunction is pending. Learned counsel has read over the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. viz. Om Prakash, Begun and Shokaran, who in their statements, categorically stated that except exchange of words, may be abusive, no such occurrence took place. 8. I have carefully gone through the statements of the witnesses. 9. Div.), Rajgarh for permanent injunction is pending. Learned counsel has read over the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. viz. Om Prakash, Begun and Shokaran, who in their statements, categorically stated that except exchange of words, may be abusive, no such occurrence took place. 8. I have carefully gone through the statements of the witnesses. 9. Learned counsel submits that the case has been instituted by non-petitioner No. 2 with ulterior motive and maliciously in order to have wreaking vengeance. Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 supported the order impugned and fairly states that neither the complainant nor the witnesses produced by him stated the actual words used by the petitioners while abusing the non-petitioner No. 2, however, submits that the offences under sections 504 and 447 I.P.C. cannot be made out in absence of actual words used. 10. Keeping in view the material on record and undisputed facts that the property is jointly owned by the parties and the allegation of the complainant that the petitioners constructed a wall adjacent to the wall of complainant's shop, be that as it may, it cannot be said that merely raising a construction adjacent to the shop of complainant would amount to commit any criminal trespass. 11. So far as offence under section 504 I.P.C. is concerned, this Court in Dr. Suresh Chandra Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) has held that the actual words used by the accused are not stated by the witnesses and, therefore, no offence under section 504 IPC is made out. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that unless abusive words used by the accused are stated by the witnesses and, therefore, no offence under sections 504 I.P.C. is made out keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that in certain contingencies, the FIR can be quashed. Keeping in view the guidelines No. 5 and 7, in my view both the courts below fall in error in taking cognizance of the offences noticed above against the petitioners. The complaint filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking the vengeance from the petitioners with a view to spite them. Keeping in view the guidelines No. 5 and 7, in my view both the courts below fall in error in taking cognizance of the offences noticed above against the petitioners. The complaint filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking the vengeance from the petitioners with a view to spite them. Due to private and personal grudge, the parties have gone for civil suit and the FIRs instituted by the non- petitioner No. 2 culminated negative final report filed by the police and those have been accepted by the trial court. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view in order to secure the ends of justice, the proceeding instituted against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.Petition allowed. *******