JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the complainant petitioner challenging the order dated 17.2.2003 whereby the learned trial Court had discharged the accused non petitioners for the offence under Section 147, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. 2. Initially, the charge against the non petitioners was framed by the trial Court on 26.9.96 for the offence under Section 147, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Aggrieved of the said order, the present non-petitioner filed a revision Petition No. 606/96. The said revision petition was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 26.7.01, directing the learned trial Court to reconsider the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides. In consequence thereof, the learned trial Court considered the matter and passed the order impugned whereby the accused on petitioners were discharged of the offences alleged against them. 3. It is the case of the petitioner complainant that he had purchased a piece of land measuring 3 bighas out of Khasara No. 471/23 in Jhunjhunu from its Khatedar Shri Surajram vide registered sale deed dated 5.1.85. The petitioner is said to have retained a plot measuring 1200 Sq. yards and rest of the land was sold out by him to various persons including accused Sanjeev, non petitioner No.5. It is alleged that the accused non petitioners trespassed on the aforesaid property on 4.8.1994 and in this regard, a complaint was filed before the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu. Thereafter, an FIR (No. 263/94) dated 27.8.94 came to be registered. The police is said to have filed a charge sheet against the non petitioners for the offence under Section 147, 447, and 323 IPC read with Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, by his order dated 26.9.96 framed charges against the non petitioner only under Section 147, 323 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. Thereafter, the aforesaid order of framing charge was challenged by the non petitioners before this Court and the order of remand came to be passed as mentioned hereinabove. 4. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, including the order impugned passed by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that no illegality or infirmity has been committed therein so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 4. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, including the order impugned passed by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that no illegality or infirmity has been committed therein so as to warrant any interference by this Court. It is to be noted that though the alleged case of the complainant petitioner revolves around the land in question but the charge in respect of 447 IPC etc. has not found to be prima facie established, by the learned court below. Moreover, the complainant petitioner had not challenged or raised any objection for non framing of charge under the offence of 447 IPC, even though the learned trial Court had not framed charges for the said offence, after having received the charge-sheet in respect of that offence. 5. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the order impugned passed by the court below, I do not find any just reason to interfere in the same.Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision Petition Dismissed. *******