Vijay Bishnoi, J.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 258/2007 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 38/2005, whereby the revisional court has accepted the revision petition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and set aside the order dated 05.05.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Reodar, District Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Complaint No. 124/2005, whereby cognizance has been taken against them by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 427 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the impugned order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the revisional court, a revision petition is maintainable before this Court, there fore, he made an oral prayer that S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 258/2007 may be treated as criminal revision petition.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 have no objection if S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 258/2007 is treated as criminal revision petition.

4. Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 258/2007 is treated as criminal revision petition.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the trial court alleging that he was in possession of a land situated in Khasara No. 1025/1 from last 30 years, where he is residing in a house constructed by him. It is alleged that on 28.02.2005 at about 11:00 AM, the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 reached the house of the petitioner and started demolishing it. It is contended that the petitioner and other persons had objected to it but the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 without any authority had demolished his house and, therefore, committed the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 427 IPC.

6. The trial court while taking into consideration the allegations levelled in the complaint and the statements of the complainant petitioner recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the other witnesses, in support of the complaint, recorded under Section 202 Cr.PC. took cognizance against the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 427 IPC.

7. Being aggrieved with the order of the trial court, the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 preferred a revision petition before the revisional court and the revisional court vide impugned order dated 22.12.2006 has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 05.05.2005 passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the revisional court has grossly erred in allowing the revision petition filed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 9 and in setting aside the order passed by the trial court, whereby the cognizance was taken against the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 437 IPC. It is argued that the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 had no authority to demolish the house of the petitioner and their such act cannot be termed as an act done in official duty and, therefore, the revisional court has grossly erred in quashing the cognizance order passed by the trial court. It is also argued that the revisional court has not taken into consideration the fact that the question whether the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 had acted in the discharge of official duty or not can only be decided during the course of the trial. It is further argued that all the respondents, except the respondent No. 2 - Naib Tehsildar, Mandar, were not public servants and, therefore, protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not available to them but the revisional court without taking into consideration this aspect has passed the impugned order.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact the Naib Tehsi