JUDGMENT 1. - On a written complaint of one K presented at 8 AM on 16.7.1994 at P.S. Takhatgarh against the petitioners, FIR No. 46/1994 was registered for the offences of Section 3 (1)(V)(x) SC/ST Act. 2. After investigation, reported under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code was filed that no encroachment or any such type of incident. Learned Magistrate hearing complainant and perusing police report vide order dated 05.12.94 took cognizance for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST Act and registering case directed summoning of petitioners by way of warrant of arrest. Aggrieved of above cognizance order is this revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that for the said (S.B. Criminal Revision No. 12/1995) incident of 07.07.94, report was lodged only on 16th that is after nine days and a month prior to this, on complaint of petitioner No.1, proceedings under Section 107, 116 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated against the complainant (of this FIR). Also argued that patta issued by Gram panchayat is in the name of petitioner and no material to disclose any alleged sale or handing over of possession. Learned Public Prosecutor states that learned Magistrate has described alleged facts and reasons. 4. Per FIR lodged on 17.7.94, the piece of land owned by petitioner no.1 was sold two years ago by petitioner no. 1 to complainant for consideration of Rs. 8000/- and possession was given with assurance of registry which never materialised and on July 7th these persons arriving in a tractor entered land and threw away goods of complainant cutting a neem tree and also removed fencing and he abusingly assaulted and threatened. Stating that due to threatening and he being afraid not earlier reported. According to endorsement on FIR above consideration amount was given in presence of Mohan S/o Bhura and written document entered into and that when incident happened Sohan S/o Puna and Puna were present. It appears that Puna Ram and Sohan stating ignorance in the course of investigation, did not support complainant. Above FIR for the said incident of 07.7.94 is lodged on 16.7.94. At PS against the complainant and by petitioner no.1 on 16.6.94 was presented a written report regarding stone slabs etc requesting protection and in this specifically mentioned is of threatening of initiating of proceedings under SC/ST Act. Above FIR for the said incident of 07.7.94 is lodged on 16.7.94. At PS against the complainant and by petitioner no.1 on 16.6.94 was presented a written report regarding stone slabs etc requesting protection and in this specifically mentioned is of threatening of initiating of proceedings under SC/ST Act. On this report, SHO also lodged a complaint under Section 107, 116 against the complainant and one other in the court of Executive Magistrate. In police report is described several other reasons of arriving at conclusions which includes that no neighbour support complainant. No written document disclosing any transfer or handing over possession to complainant is and in the FIR itself is stated that patta is in the name of petitioner. Version of complainant and allegations is not supported by any other material and in police report appears well based reasons for arriving at conclusions. For the above reasons, the impugned order of cognizance and registering FIR is not sustainable. Accordingly, allowing the revision , the impugned order dated 05.12.94 (in relation to FIR No. 46/94) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sumerpur is set aside.Revision allowed. *******