JUDGMENT H.R. Panwar, J. - This criminal misc. petition is directed against the order dated 14.6.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand (for short 'the revisional Court' hereinafter) dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter).2. This criminal misc. petition came to be filed way back on 30.10.2006 and more than 2 years have lapsed and the defects have not been removed. However, the matter is heard and examined on merit.3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional Court fell in error in dismissing the revision petition for non-prosecution.4. I have gone through the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court.5. The revision petition came to be filed way back in the month of September 2005 and thereafter the matter was adjourned on several occasions and the counsel appearing for the revisionist before the revisional Court sought adjournment on several occasions and ultimately after having availed more than 9 adjournments failed to argue the matter and the revision petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution.6. I have examined the order of the trial Court. On a report lodged by the petitioner, the police investipted the matter. The allegation in the crime report was that the respondents No. 2 and 3 damaged the boundary wall of the field of the petitioner. After thorough investigation, the police came to the conclusion that there had not been any such construction of wall and therefore, question of damaging or breaking the wall does not arise and submitted a negative final report stating therein that no such occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. has taken place. On a notice, the petitioner filed protest petition but despite availing several opportunities, failed to produce any evidence in support thereof before the trial Court and ultimately relying on report of the Patwari who stated that on the relevant date and relevant site, there had not been any stone wall constructed by the petitioner and therefore, the trial Court accepted the negative final report and dismissed the protest petition for want of evidence. In my view, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the protest petition in absence of any material to proceed against the respondents No. 2 and 3.7. In my view, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the protest petition in absence of any material to proceed against the respondents No. 2 and 3.7. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any merit in the criminal misc. petition. The criminal misc. petition is therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******