JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 1.12.2005 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg Bharatpur (for short "the learned revisional Court") in Criminal Revision Petition No. 92/2000, by which he affirmed the order dated 11.9.2000 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Deeg, Bharatpur (for short "the learned trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 393/2000. 2. In short the facts of the case are that complainant respondent No. 2 Heera Lal filed a complaint mentioning therein the detailed facts in the Court of ACJM, Deeg. 3. The aforesaid complaint was sent by the learned Magistrate to the P.S. Deeg for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered an F.I.R. No. 141/1998 for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. 5. After investigation, the police submitted final report in the case. 6. The learned trial Court dissatisfied with the final report, took cognizance against the accused-petitioners for the offence under Sections 147 and 279 (sic 379) I.P.C. vide order dated 11.9.2000. 7. The accused-petitioners being aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 11.9.2000, preferred a criminal revision before the learned revisional Court. 8. The learned revisional Court after hearing dismissed the criminal revision and maintained the order passed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 1.12.2005. Hence, this misc. petition before this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners and complainant are cousin brothers. The wood which were alleged to have stolen by the accused-petitioners was in their possession and the aforesaid land came into their possession as per family settlement and in this regard, a compromise decree has also been passed by the S.D.O., Deeg on 21.5.1996 and thereafter, the aforesaid land has been mutated in the name of accused-petitioners. Lastly, he submits that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused-petitioners is very petty one and the worth of the stolen property is not more than 2,000/-. Thus, the orders impugned passed by both the learned Courts below be quashed and set aside. 11. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Lastly, he submits that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused-petitioners is very petty one and the worth of the stolen property is not more than 2,000/-. Thus, the orders impugned passed by both the learned Courts below be quashed and set aside. 11. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Chouhan, learned counsel for the complainant submit controverted the aforesaid submissions and submit that both the Courts below have passed the impugned orders after properly considering the entire material made available to them. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. 12. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also the fact that the learned Courts below while passing the orders impugned has not gone through the facts of the case as also material made available to them. Thus, the orders impugned passed by both the learned Courts below needs to be interfered with. 13. In the result, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 1.12.2005 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 1 Deeg, Bharatpur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 92/2000 by which he has maintained the order dated 11.9.2000 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Deeg, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 393/2000, are quashed and set aside. The order parsed in this case shall not affect the proceedings pending before any Court.Petition allowed. *******