JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1.Present revision has been filed against order dated 15-09-2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, by which complaint case of revisionist was dismissed u/s 203 CrPC. 2.I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 2, learned AGA and gone through the records. 3.Complainant-revisionist had filed complaint in lower Court with averment that on 30-07-2011 at about 6.30 p.m. opposite parties had started constructing road on his bhumidhari land no. 696. When he objected then Ops had threatened to kill him and chased and destroyed his machine and other materials. 4.In support of his case the complainant had examined him u/s 200 CrPC and two witnesses namely, Dhirendra Kumar Advocate and Sanjay Kumar Pandey u/s 202 CrPC. After hearing, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad had dismissed the complaint case u/s 203 CrPC by impugned order, aggrieved by which complainant had preferred present revision. 5.Contention of learned counsel for the revisionist was that Court below had mentioned in impugned order that Khasra o disputed land had not been filed, so copy of said document has been filed with present revision. He also argued that trial Court had not considered the evidences relating to other incident mentioned in complaint. Therefore revision against impugned erroneous order should be allowed. 6.Learned counsel for the respondent contended that complainant- revisionist had been trying to usurp public land of road over which road had already been constructed. He had filed complaint case in response to civil dispute of land. Therefore this revision should be dismissed. 7.I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the records of the case. 8.Admittedly cause of action for the application arose on basis of land in dispute. Before deciding the responsibility of any party or commission of alleged offence, it has to be decided as to whether the disputed place is bhumidhari land no. 696 of revisionist or it is part of public road. Without survey of the land as well as the decision of ownership and title of the disputed place any liability or responsibility cannot be fixed and it cannot be decided as to whether any offence had been committed or not. Dispute of possession and ownership of land as well as crop over it is involved in this case which is root cause of the matter. Dispute of possession and ownership of land as well as crop over it is involved in this case which is root cause of the matter. This appears to be a dispute of purely civil nature, in which criminal Court cannot determine the ownership of disputed land, which will be necessary to prove revisionist's version. 9.There appears no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order of dismissal of complaint case that may require interference by exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Therefore the revision is dismissed. ——————