1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 769/2006 (Babu Lal Vs. Vishnu Kumar and Ors.) Date of Order : 27/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Rakesh Arora for the petitioner. Dr. Sachin Acharya for the respondents. Mr. V.R.Mehta, P.P. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the complainant petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.05.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.1.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in FR No. 23/03 was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the courts below as also the statements of witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statements recorded by the trial court under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 2 Both the courts below concurrently found that the petitioner complainant has no possession over the land in dispute. However, it has come in evidence that on the relevant date of occurrence, the complainant has made efforts to put scrap on the plot in question. The immediate neighbour to the land in dispute Jotaram, Heeraram and Kishanlal categorically stated that no such occurrence as alleged by the complainant has taken place and stated that the complainant has not been in possession of the said land. Even there is evidence of Harisingh said to be the Headmaster of the school where one of the respondent Amritlal is teacher and it has been prima-facie established from the evidence that at the relevant time the accused was not at the place of alleged occurrence. Be that as it may. Both the courts below after considering the entire material placed before it came to the conclusion that there is no ground to proceed against the respondents and there has not been any occurrence as alleged by the complainant and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner and accepted the FR. In my view, the conclusion arrived at by the courts below cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal in any manner, on the contrary it is based on proper and sound appreciation of the evidence available on record. It cannot be said that the orders impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court warranting interference under Section 482 3 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, consciously and in exceptional cases. In the instant case, no such case is made out by the petitioner. The petition has no force and it is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp