IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-19490 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 05, 2008 Ram Khiladi & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palwal & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The petitioners were proceeded against under the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C. The application was allowed. The petitioners carried a revision petition. The revision has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.7.2008. The reasons for dismissing the revision are contained in Para 8 which read as under:- “8. In the present case the argument put forth on behalf of revisionists was that the SDM had failed to pass a conditional order. It is not so. A conditional order was passed on 14.9.2007 and time was given to the revisionists to clear the encroachment. The record shows that a statement was made on their behalf that the encroachment would be cleared by 25.2.2008 after getting the demarcation done. The record shows that an application was made on 25.2.2008 for demarcation and an order was passed appointing a local commission on payment of costs but costs were not deposited and ultimately final order was passed on 10.4.2008. The Crl. Misc. No.M- of 2008 [2] record also shows that Rattan Lal father of Ram Khiladi and Prem Raj had moved an application to the Tehsildar in April, 2002 for getting the property demarcated and in the presence of parties demarcation was done after had been given. Report was received that encroachment had been made on the public thoroughfare. Proceedings were started by the Gram Panchayat. A conditional order was passed which was not complied with. Subsequently a final order was passed.” I see no reason to interfere while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 05, 2008 JUDGE avin