SBCRRP976/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.976/2010 Hanuman Sahay Vs. The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor Date of Order ::: 18.08.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Amit Jindal, Counsel for petitioner Shri Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor #### By the Court:- This revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 16.07.2010. The learned Sessions Judge, by the said order, while allowing the revision petition of the accused-respondents, set aside the order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, by which the final report submitted in the criminal case registered against the accused-respondents was disallowed. In effect, the order accepting the final report proposed by the Investigating Agency, was approved by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the offence under Section 427 IPC and Section 427 read with Section 109 IPC were fully made out against the accused-respondents; merely because the amount of loss was not indicated in the statements would not amount that the offence therein is not made out. It was argued that Section 95 of SBCRRP976/2010 // 2 // the IPC has wrongly been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge which deals with the act causing slight harm. The non-mentioning of the amount of loss does not bring the matter within the purview of Section 95 of the IPC. The statements of the witnesses of the complainant were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. but the same have been misread by the learned Sessions Judge. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned in this revision petition, I find that it was a dispute over demolition of a small portion of 'med' (mud wall), which was broken by the accused-respondents while driving a tractor. The learned Sessions Judge, in its discretion, has found that in the first place no amount of loss was indicated by the complainant in his statement as a witness and secondly it was a petty cash in which Section 95 of the IPC was attracted. On reading of the judgment impugned in this revision petition, I do not find any illegality or irregularity therein which warrants interference of this Court in this revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//