ORDER 1. This petition under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 takes exception to the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge Bhind, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of IPC. The proceedings were initiated at the instance of petitioner, who filed a complaint before Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind alleging that the plot situated over Survey No.1624 and 1630 admeasuring 20 x 30 Sq.Ft. belongs to the complainant which was sold by respondents No. 4 and 5 to the respondents No. 1 and 2 on 7.12009 vide registered sale deed (Ex.D2) registered before Sub-Registrar, Mehgaon, District Bhind. The complaint was to the extent that respondents no.4 and 5 in connivance with respondents No.1 and 2 have prepared a forged document and dishonestly cheated the complainant by selling his land vide sale-deed. 2. It was urged that a plot was purchased by the father of the complainant. On the basis of said complaint, FIR was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 120B read with 34 of the IPC against the respondent No.1,2 4 and 5. The trial Court after recording evidence returned a finding that no offence is made out against the respondents and acquitted them vide order dated 12.10.2017. 3. Present petition is filed on the ground that the trial Court grossly erred in appreciating the evidence on record and on the basis of perverse reasoning recorded in paragraph 25 of the judgment which percolated through the entire judgment an erroneous order has been passed which deserves to be set aside. 4. To substantiate the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Article-A and Ex.D2. It is submitted that Article-A is registered sale deed dated 7.5.1973 in favour of the petitioner's father, wherein on the east side it is recorded as Nala Ganda Pani Sarkari. It is further stated that in the sale deed executed on 7.1.2009 also on the east side it is recorded 16 feet east Sarkari Nala. It is contended that aforesaid fact has been glossed over by the trial Court while recording reasoning in paragraph 25 of the judgment. 5. It is further stated that in the sale deed executed on 7.1.2009 also on the east side it is recorded 16 feet east Sarkari Nala. It is contended that aforesaid fact has been glossed over by the trial Court while recording reasoning in paragraph 25 of the judgment. 5. In paragraph 25 of the judgment the trial Court records : ^^25- izdj.k esa mifLFkr lk{; ls ;g nf'kZr gS fd] fnukad 13-1-2009 dks tks ukekarj.k gqvk gS og foØ;i= vkfVZdy&, esa n'kkZbZ xbZ prqlhZek ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS tc fd] foØ;i= iz-Mh-&02 esa Li"V :i ls vkjkth ua-&1624] 1630 feu dh 0-003 Hkwfe fodz; gqbZ gSA mDr foØ;i= ds vuqlkj foØ; dh xbZ Hkwfe tks fd] mRrj&nf{k.k esa 16 QhV PkkSM+h vkSj iwoZ&if'pe esa 20 QhV yEch gS vkSj mlds mRrj esa izse esMhdy dk edku] nf{k.k esa ekS jksM esgxkao] if'pe esa jkBkSj dh [kkyh txg vkSj iwoZ esa ljdkjh ukyk gSA vfHk;kstu dks mijksDr nksuksa foØ;i=ksa esa fn[kkbZ xbZ pkSgn~nh ds laca/k esa bl izdkj dh Bksl lk{; izLrqr dh tkuk vko';d Fkh fd] iz-Mh-2 ds ek/;e ls tks Hkwfe foØ; dh xbZ gS og ogh Hkwfe Fkh tks vkVhZdy&, ds ek/;e ls Qfj;knhx.k ds firk }kjk Ø; dh xbZ FkhA bl laca/k esa mDr foØ;i=ksa ds vfrfjDr dksbZ Bksl lk{; vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA vkVhZdy&, ds foØ;i= ,oa iz-Mh-&02 ds foØ;i= esa mYysf[kr pkSgn~nh dk ;fn feyku fd;k tk, rks nksuksa pkSgfn~n;ksa leku ugha gSA vkVhZdy&, ds foØ;i= esa tks IykWV foØ; fd;k x;k Fkk mlds iwoZ esa foØsrk dh txg gS vkSj mlds ckn ljdkjh ukyk mYysf[kr gS tc fd ç-Mh-&2 ds foØ;i= ds ek/;e ls tks IykWV foØ; gqvk gS ml IykWV ds iwoZ esa ljdkjh ukyk gS tks fd] ;g nf'kZr djrk gS fd] nksuksa foØ;i=ksa esa foØhr IykWV ds iwoZ dh fn'kk esa fHkUurk gSA** The reasoning given in paragraph 25 when is closely analyzed is on the basis of Article-A and Ex.D2 it leaves no iota of doubt that there exists a vacant land between the land in question and Sarkari Nala. Thus, the boundaries as marked in both the map i.e. Article-A and Ex.D2 are different than what is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Thus, the boundaries as marked in both the map i.e. Article-A and Ex.D2 are different than what is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Since the reasoning given and the finding arrived at by the trial Court are in consonance with the cogent material and documentary evidence on record, we find no jurisdictional error on the part of the Additional Sessions Judge in recording the acquittal of respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 as would warrant any indulgence. No other grounds are pressed in service. 7. In view of the above analysis, we decline to cause any interference. 8. Consequently, revision fails and is dismissed. S.N. Seth for applicatnt.