JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed by the complainant. He is aggrieved against the decision of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anupgarh who vide order dated 5th September, 2006 had discharged respondent nos. 2 and 3 from the charge-sheet submitted against them. Petitioner not being satisfied filed the revision petition against the order whereby respondent nos. 2 and 3 were discharged. The above said revision petition was also dismissed on 19th August, 2010 by Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh. 2. Complainant had pleaded in the complaint that Nagar Singh was owner of 8 Bighas of land. Nagar Singh had sold the above said land to Kartar Kaur by way of sale-deed. Kartar Kaur had sold land to the complainant and his brother Diwan Singh vide an agreement to sell dated 15th February, 1988. Since Kartar had not executed a sale-deed, a suit for specific performance was filed by the complainant, which was decreed on 8th November, 1996. 3. Accused respondent Jagdish Singh and Mukhtiar Singh being sons of Nagar Singh as per complainant knowing fully well that decree of a specific performance is in favour of the petitioner complainant had mortgaged the land, representing that the land belongs to them. The land was mortgaged in favour of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. 4. The trial Court had discharged the accused on the ground that in the record of rights, it has not been recorded, that Kartar Kaur had purchased the land from the father of the accused, and she had become owner of the land. 5. The Court further held that it has no where come in evidence that accused intended to deceive the complainant or they were aware regarding the sale-deed executed by their father. The revisional Court further held that in the revenue record, Jagdish Singh and Mukhtiar Sing were reflected as owners in possession. The Court below further held that no wrongful loss has been caused to the complainant petitioner. 6. Shri Punkaj Gupta appearing for the petitioner has not been able to produce any document or statement in his favour, from which it could be inferred that the accused were aware regarding the decree in favour of the petitioner. 7. Further more in the revenue record, no where it is recorded that Kartar Kaur became owner of the land because of the sale-deed executed by the father of the accused. 7. Further more in the revenue record, no where it is recorded that Kartar Kaur became owner of the land because of the sale-deed executed by the father of the accused. It has been rightly held by the two Courts below that necessary intention to cheat on the part of the accused-respondent is lacking in the prosecution case. 8. This Court in the present petition under 482 Cr.P.C. will not cause interference, as no patent illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Court below is discernable. 9. Furthermore, the present petition under 482 Cr.P.C. tantamount to second revision where scope of interference is very limited. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition. The misc. petition along with stay petition stand dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******