Order : ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J. 1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 08.08.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Dausa (hereinafter referred as ‘learned Revisional Court’ for brevity) in Criminal Revision No.37/2020 whereby, the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 25.03.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa whereby, the learned trial Court accepted the protest petition filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 and took cognizance against the petitioner for offencepunishable under Section 379 of IPC . 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was submitted by the respondent No.2 alleging therein that the petitioner cut the Neem tree from its root and took away the said tree which was planted by his father outside their house. On the said complaint, FIR No.440/2017 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali (Dausa), District Dausa for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC . After a thorough investigation, the police filed a negative final report. Subsequently, a protest petition was filed by the complainant against the said report and vide order dated 25.03.2019, the said protest petition was accepted by the learned Trial Magistrate and cognizance was taken against the petitioner for offence under of . The order of cognizance was assailed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court, which was dismissed. Hence this Criminal Misc. Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, at the initial stage, no case was made out against the petitioner by the Investigating Agency, therefore, a negative final report was proposed in the matter and same was accepted by the learned Trial Magistrate. Counsel submits that the order of acceptance of negative final report was assailed by the complainant before the learned Revisional Court in Revision Petition No. 125/2017 and vide order dated 17.11.2017, the said revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Magistrate for passing a fresh order. Thereafter, complainant and other witnesses were examined by the trial Court and vide order dated 09.05.2018, protest petition filed by complainant was dismissed. Thereafter, complainant and other witnesses were examined by the trial Court and vide order dated 09.05.2018, protest petition filed by complainant was dismissed. Subsequently, complainant preferred another Revision Petition No.58/2018 and vide order dated 06.06.2018, learned Revisional Court set aside the order of the Trial Magistrate dated 09.05.2018 with the direction to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after considering the material available on record. Counsel submits that in continuation of the directions issued by the learned Revisional Court, learned Trial Magistrate vide impugned order dated 25.03.2019 took cognizance against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC . Counsel submits that the said impugned order of cognizance was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing a revision petition, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 08.08.2022. 4. Counsel submits that the learned courts below have committed serious error of facts and law in initiating the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Counsel submits that it is apparent from the record that the FIR was lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2 against the petitioner on the basis of information provided to him by his neighbours with regard to the theft of Neem tree. Counsel submits that in the FIR, the names of neighbours, who disclosed the name of the petitioner to the complainant in respect of theft of Neem tree, were not mentioned. It is also evident from the record that even during the course of investigation, the complainant did not disclose the names of the neighbours, who saw the petitioner cutting the tree. Counsel further submits that later on, learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner solely on the basis of statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of his five witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. wherein they have alleged that the petitioner cut the tree and took the same to his house. It is evident from the record that out of these five witnesses, two witnesses namely Guddi Devi & Dinesh Kumar Meena were examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, but nothing was alleged by them against the petitioner in their statement. It is evident from the record that out of these five witnesses, two witnesses namely Guddi Devi & Dinesh Kumar Meena were examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, but nothing was alleged by them against the petitioner in their statement. Counsel submits that it is also evident from the record that the recovery of alleged tree was not made from the possession of the petitioner and the same was found lying in front of the house of the complainant, from where recovery was made by the Investigating Agency. Counsel submits that it has also come on record that there was an old enmity between the petitioner and the complainant and for this reason, this false story has been concocted by the complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that learned courts below have recorded concurrent finding and rightly passed the impugned orders. Counsel submits that the courts below have not committed any error in taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 379 of IPC . The impugned orders passed by the courts below are detailed and reasoned orders and thus, the same do not warrant any interference from this Court. It is also submitted that the trial has commenced and two witnesses have already been examined. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the material on record. 7. Normally, High Court would not interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. But at the same time, High Court would be justified in stepping in if it is shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse or there is non-consideration of relevant material and the orders passed by the Courts below lead to miscarriage of justice. I fortify my view from the Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan & Anr. Vs Krishnaveni & Anrs, reported in 1997 (2) RLW (Raj.) 241 wherein the Supreme Court held as under-: “10. I fortify my view from the Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan & Anr. Vs Krishnaveni & Anrs, reported in 1997 (2) RLW (Raj.) 241 wherein the Supreme Court held as under-: “10. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant - cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397 (1) or under inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstance, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power and in appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397 (1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity or procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out. The recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the witness or to win over the witness by promise or inducement. These malpractices need to be curbed and public justices can be ensured only when expeditious trial is conducted. 11. The recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the witness or to win over the witness by promise or inducement. These malpractices need to be curbed and public justices can be ensured only when expeditious trial is conducted. 11. In Madhu Limaye V/s. The State of Maharashtra [ (1977) 4 SCC 551 ], a three-Judge Bench was to consider the scope of the power of the High Court under Section 482 and Section 397 (2) of the Code. This Court held that the bar on the power of revision was put in order to facilitate expedient disposal of the case but in it is provided that nothing in the Code which would include Section 397 (2) also, shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. On an harmonious construction of said two provisions in this behalf, it was held that though the High Court has no power of revision in an interlocutory order, still the inherent power will come into play when there is no provision for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In that case, when allegation of defamatory statements were published in the newspapers against the Law Minister, the State Government had decided to prosecute the appellant for offence under Section 500, IPC . After obtaining the sanction, on a complaint made by the public prosecutor, cognisance of the commission of the offence by the appellant was taken to take trial in the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Sessions Judge rejected all the contentions and framed the charges under Section 406. The Order of the Sessions Judge was challenged in revision in the High Court. On a preliminary objection raised on the maintainability, this Court held that power of the High Court to entertain the revision was not taken away under Section 397 or inherent power under Section482 of the Code. 14. The Order of the Sessions Judge was challenged in revision in the High Court. On a preliminary objection raised on the maintainability, this Court held that power of the High Court to entertain the revision was not taken away under Section 397 or inherent power under Section482 of the Code. 14. In view of the above discussion, we hold that through the revision before the High Court under sub- section (1) of Section 397 is prohibited by sub-section (3) thereof, inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code and as it is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under Section 483, the High Court is justified in interfering with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside the order of the courts below. It remitted the case to the Magistrate for decision on merits after consideration of the evidence. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case. Since the High Court has left the matter to be considered by the Magistrate, it would be in appropriate at this stage to go into that question. We have only considered the issue of power and jurisdiction of the High Court in the in the context of the revisional power under Section 397 (1) read with Section 397(3) and the inherent powers. We do not find any justification warranting interference in the appeal.” 8. In the present case, it is admitted position of the fact that main allegation in the FIR against the Petitioner is that in the absence of the complainant – respondent No.2, the petitioner cut and stole a Neem tree that was planted on the road in front of the complainant’s house. The complainant was informed about the entire incident by his neighbours. Although surprisingly neither in the FIR nor in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the names of neighbours, who informed him about the incident, are mentioned. As per record, five witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, the protest petition was filed by the complainant aggrieved by the submission of negative final report by the Investigating Agency. Out of these five witnesses, two namely Guddi Devi and Dinesh Kumar Meena were examined by the Investigating Agency under of the Cr.P.C., but according to their version, nothing was alleged against the petitioner. Out of these five witnesses, two namely Guddi Devi and Dinesh Kumar Meena were examined by the Investigating Agency under of the Cr.P.C., but according to their version, nothing was alleged against the petitioner. It is also apposite to mention here that the complainant has no ownership over the alleged Neem tree as it was located in a public pathway in front of his house. Moreover, the alleged cut and stolen Neem tree was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner but same was found in front of the complainant’s house. From a careful reading of the statement of the witnesses recorded under of Cr.P.C., it appears that they contradict each other. The Investigating Officer also has opined that the case was registered on account of personal enmity and initially conclusion of the Investigating Officer was accepted by the learned Trial Magistrate, but the said order was assailed by the complainant by way of a revision petition before the Revisional Court. Revisional court while accepting the revision petition filed by the complainant, remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate for re-consideration and in compliance of the directions of the Revisional Court, learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and issued process against the petitioner. 9. At this juncture, it is sufficient to say that directing the Trial Magistrate to re-consider the matter does not mean that cognizance must necessarily be taken. At the time of consideration of protest petition against the submission of negative final report, it is obligatory for the Trial Magistrate to consider not only the statement recorded under Sections 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C., but also the material placed before him by the Investigating Agency in his final report. It is also apparent from the record that three witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the complainant in support of his protest petition, are not of the same locality and in their presence, cutting of tree does not seem probable. It is also noteworthy that the tree did not belong to the complainant, therefore, there was no occasion for them to inform the complainant about the alleged incident. The alleged Neem tree was a public property, but no complaint has been made by any public officer. It is also noteworthy that the tree did not belong to the complainant, therefore, there was no occasion for them to inform the complainant about the alleged incident. The alleged Neem tree was a public property, but no complaint has been made by any public officer. Out of these five witnesses, three witnesses are not of the same vicinity, except two namely Guddi Devi and Dinesh Kumar Meena, who did not support the case under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 10. So far, the submission of the complainant-respondent No.2 that trial has commenced and two witnesses have been examined, it is suffice to say that inherent powers can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings to prevent the abuse of law. 11. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the considered view that initiation of criminal proceedings vide order dated 25.03.2019 and confirmed by the Revisional Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.03.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa and order dated 08.08.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dausa are hereby quashed and set aside and all the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner consequent to FIR No.440/2017, registered at PS Kotwali Dausa, District Dausa punishable for offence under Section 379 IPC are also quashed and set aside. 13. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.