1. - This misc. petition is against the order dated 18.2.1997 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh whereby he directed the re-opening of Cr. Case No. 997/98, which had already been decided on 17.1.1996.

2. Mr. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioners pointing out that applying the principles of Common Cause Case the petitioners had been acquitted vide order dated 17.1.1996, but the Magistrate has re-opened the case in view of the second judgment of the Common Cause Case, contends that the case was not covered by the second judgment of Common Cause. He also points out that the case is of petty nature between the real brothers.

3. The learned Public Prosecution's contention is that the earlier order dated 17.1.1996 was without jurisdiction, and therefore, this Court should not interfere in the impugned order.

4. I have considered the above arguments. The brief facts of the case are that in a case registered at the instance of Shanti Devi in 1993 the poiice, after completion of the investigation, gave Final Report. The learned Magistrate refused to accept the Final Report and issued process against the petitioners for offence under Secs. 147, 451 and 3