Important Point—Second revision petition is barred.

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 23.03.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Pali (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision No. 25/2011, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner No. 1 has been dismissed. The said revision petition was preferred by the petitioner No. 1 against the order dated 13.11.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Pali (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Original Case No. 515/2010, whereby it took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 447 and 427 IPC and summoned them.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners to the effect that he has purchased a plot No. 17 through registered sale-deed from petitioner No. 2. The said plot is situated in Khasra No. 128, which was the Khatedari land of petitioner No. 2. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner No. 2 filed a revenue suit for declaration and injunction in the revenue court and the summons of said suit was served upon respondent No. 2 on 18.04.2001. Then the respondent No. 2 visited the disputed plot and found that petitioners have taken possession of the said plot of him and other plots of various persons and they also destroyed the boundary marks on the said plots. It is also alleged that at the site 4-5 notorious type of persons were standing. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2 came to know that as a highway is being proposed from the said land, the petitioner No. 2, with the intention to grab the land for getting compensation, took the possession of the said land illegally, though the same was sold to the respondent No. 2 and other persons and destroyed the boundary marks of the said plots and also erected some temporary hut-mates and filed the revenue suit before the revenue court. It is also alleged that the petitioner No. 1 threatened the respondent No. 2 with dire consequences.

3. The complaint of the respondent No. 2 was forwarded by the trial court for investigation to the Police Station, Sadar, Pali, where FIR No. 68/2001 was registered, however, the police after investigation filed a negative final report while concluding that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 is purely of civil nature.

4. The trial court vide order dated 25.08.2004 accepted the said final report and rejected the protest petition filed by respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 preferred a revision petition, which was allowed by the revisional court and the matter was remanded to the trial court for passing a fresh order after taking into consideration the material available on the police file and after giving opportunities of hearing to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, statements of respondent No. 2 were recorded under section 200 CrPC, however, the trial court again accepted the final report submitted by the police vide order dated 06.12.2007 and rejected the protest petition filed by the respondent No. 2.

5. The revisional court vide order dated 06.08.2008 again set aside the order dated 06.12.2007 passed by the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the case after taking into consideration the directions given by it in its earlier order dated 04.01.2005.

6. Pursuant to that the trial court heard the counsel for the respondent No. 2 and after taking into consideration the evidence collected by the police, during the course of investigation and the statements of the complainant-respondent No. 2 in support of the complaint, passed the impugned order and took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 447 and 427 IPC. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the said revision petition has been dismissed by the revisional co