JUDGMENT : 1. On a report lodged by one Shiv Kumar S/O Nek Chand Kotwal against the petitioners, FIR No.119/2008 was registered at Police Station, Bhaderwah under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 RPC on 4-8-2008. After investigation police filed charge sheet for commission of offences under the aforementioned sections read with section 34 RPC against the petitioners. 2. It was alleged by the informant in the report lodged by him that on 2-8-2008 two sons of petitioner No.2 started felling trees growing in the land of the informant comprised in Khasra No.1705 measuring 03 marlas. The other two petitioners were standing there. The informant and his wife prevented them from felling the trees but the petitioners assaulted him and his wife, abused them and made them to run away from the place of occurrence. They also threatened them with dire consequences. The Investigating Officer after investigation found that there is litigation between the parties in respect of the aforementioned land and cases are pending up to the High Court. The petitioners committed trespass upon the said land with the intention of taking its possession forcibly, they started felling and pruning the trees and bushes growing on the said land and on being prevented by the informant and his wife the petitioners assaulted both of them and threatened them with dire consequences. 3. The learned trial court after hearing both the sides and perusal of record found that as per the revenue record the place of occurrence measuring 03 marlas of land is possessed by the father of the informant, the petitioners and three others namely Mohinder Prakash, Surinder Prakash and Narinder Parkash. The learned Magistrate, therefore, while noticing that the land was owned and possessed by the petitioners and the father of the informant jointly and that the informant was not shown in exclusive possession thereof and having regard to the pendency of the civil litigation in regard to the said land between the parties took the view that the ingredients of section 447 RPC were not fulfilled and, therefore, acquitted the petitioners. 4. 4. In revision petition filed against the order of acquittal by the State, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah vide his order dated 17-09-2010 modified the order passed by the learned Magistrate and while maintaining the order to the extent of offence under Sections 504 and 506 RPC directed the learned Magistrate to proceed against the petitioners for commission of offence under sections 447 and 427 RPC. The learned Sessions Judge held that there was enough prima facie material to make out a case under sections 447 and 427 RPC. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is impugned in this petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admitted case of the prosecution is that there is civil litigation between the parties in regard to the land on which the trespass is said to have been committed. It is discernible from the record that the petitioners and father of the informant are brothers and all of them alongwith three other brothers are recorded in the revenue record as joint owners in possession of the said land. In such a situation a prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioners for commission of offence of trespass and mischief is not made out. Since the civil litigation between the parties is pending in various courts as per the prosecution case the proper course with the informant and his father was to agitate the matter before the civil court. Once there is no prima facie case for proceeding under sections 447 and 427 RPC, having regard to the nature of alleged occurrence, there would be no prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioners for commission of offence under sections 504 and 506 RPC too. 7. Viewed, thus, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah is set aside. 8. Record of both the courts below be remitted back alongwith a copy of this order forthwith.