IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6885 of 1999 1. KRISHNANANDAN SAH S/O JAGESHWAR SAH. 2. DILIP SAH, S/O JAGESHWAR SAH. 3. CHHOTA LAL SAH, SON OF JAGESHWAR SAH. ALL R/O VILLAGE-RAHATPUR, P.S.BALLIA, DISTT- BEGUSARAI………………………………….(ACCUSED PERSONS)………………………………..…..PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SONE LAL SAH, S/O JHARI SAH, R/O VILLAGE- RAHATPUR, P.S.BALLIA, DISTT- BEGUSARAI…….(COMPLAINANT)………OPP. PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioners:- Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwari, APP. ----------- 05. 20-4-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Complainant. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of revisional order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No. 404 of 1998 whereby the court declined to interfere with the order of cognizance dated 25.5.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.746 C/1998. The offences relate to Section 325, 337 and 452 of the IPC. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the occurrence took place over a piece of land which was subject matter of a Title Suit filed by the complainant earlier to the present occurrence and from the relief claimed in that suit it - 2 - would appear that he was not in possession over that land and wanted recovery of possession. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the materials on records it is found that the alleged occurrence is a house trespass and assault and there is specific case of the complainant and his witnesses that at the time of occurrence the complainant was inside his house repairing the roof and after entering into his house the occurrence was committed by the accused persons, but there is no material to support the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the residential house of the complainant is subject matter of the suit and that the complainant has prayed for recovery of possession in respect of his residential house. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is misconceived and devoid of any merit. On going through the revisional order, this Court finds no error in the order so as to warrant any interference in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)