JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred to question judgment dated 19.03.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand whereby the order dated 6.4.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the trial court for framing charges against the accused-petitioners for the offences under section 295 & 379 IPC. 2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that Kalu Nath allegedly executed a registered sale deed on 14.11.2011 in favour of Bholi Bai and possession was also handed over to her of some agricultural land wherein idols (Samidhies) of predecessors of Kalu Nath and others of Kalbeliya community were established and places were allegedly being maintained as place of worship by them. After purchase of the land from Bholi Bai, the accused petitioners alleged destroyed the idols and place of worship for which an FIR came to be registered fro the offences under section 295 & 379 IPC. The police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused-petitioners. Learned trial court vide order dated 6.4.2013 discharged the accused-petitioners on the ground that the said place of worship was purchased by accused-petitioners from Bholi Bai. Thus, they were entitled to use the said land in the manner they wish. The learned trial court was of the view that there cannot be any question of committing theft of anything which was established on the land purchased by the accused-petitioners. 3. Challenge was made to this order of discharge by the complainant Kalu Nath by way of filing a revision petition before learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, meanwhile a Civil Suit No.9/2012 titled Kalu Nath v. Bholi Bai was decided vide judgment dated 4.4.2015 whereby the sale deed executed by Kalu Nath was cancelled on the basis of which the learned trial court passed the order of discharge in favour of accused-petitioners Learned Sessions Judge while taking the fact of cancellation of sale deed into consideration and also considering the factual aspects that idols (Samadhies) of Kalbeliya committee were found to be demolished and destroyed came to the conclusion that the order of discharge is not liable to be sustained. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge quashed the order of discharge and remanded the matter back to the learned trial court to frame the charges. This order of learned Sessions Judge has been challenged by way of filing this revision petition. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge quashed the order of discharge and remanded the matter back to the learned trial court to frame the charges. This order of learned Sessions Judge has been challenged by way of filing this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that an appeal has been preferred against the judgment of cancellation of sale deed wherein status quo has been ordered to be maintained. It is further contended that as the purchasers of the agricultural land were entitled to use that land for agricultural purpose and with that object they removed the idols (Samadhies) but there was no intention of the accused petitioners to cause any insult to a class of persons. Hence, the order of discharge passed by learned trial court was proper and sustainable. He thus prays that the order passed by learned Sessions Judge may be set aside and this revision petition may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has argued that Bholi Bai was simply enroped in the series of transactions to get the sale deed executed in favour of the accused-petitioners because otherwise the land could not have been purchased by the petitioners. Bholi Bai was not member of the family/clan of the complainant Kalunath. He submits that ultimately alleged sale deed executed by Bholi Bai came to be cancelled vide judgment dated 4.4.2015. Thereafter, there was no legal right existing in favour of the accused-petitioners to destroy or defile the place of worship being maintained by the complainant and their caste fellows. He has further drawn attention of this court to the statement recorded under section 161 of complainant Kalu Nath, Ram Nath, Manju Bai, Dulanath etc. wherein these witnesses have categorically stated that idols (Samadhies) of their ancestors were established and the place was being maintained as a place of worship but the accused persons have destroyed and defiled the place with an intention of causing harm to their religious feelings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 prays that this revision petition in view of the facts mentioned is not liable to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 prays that this revision petition in view of the facts mentioned is not liable to be allowed. 6. Having considered the rival contentions raised by the opposite side, this court is of the view that so far as sale deed is concerned on the basis of which the accused persons are claiming title and possession over the dispute site has since been cancelled by the judgment dated 04.04.2015 passed in Civil suit No.9/2012. Thus, the accused-petitioners cannot claim any title or possession over the said land on the basis of the said sale deed. Further, it is not a simple question of title and possession over the piece of land but the idols (Samadhies) of any class of persons which were being maintained as a place of worship by them have been damaged and defiled by the accused persons. The statement recorded under section 161 Cr.PC of the complainant and other witnesses prima facie show that these idols were damaged by the accused-petitioners with an intention to cause hurt to their religious feelings. In view of this factual aspect also, it was not in the fitness of the things to discharge the accused persons of the offence punishable under section 295 IPC. Thus, the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dated 19.03.2016 appears to be just and there appears no just reason to set aside this order. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed and the order passed by Sessions Judge, Rajsamand is maintained.The record of the case be immediately sent to the concerned court.Revision dismissed. *******