Aditya Nath Mittal, J.

1. Heard Shri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Prabhu Ranjan Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 3 and 4 and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed against the order dated 29.04.2004, passed by the then learned Additional Session Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No. 26 of 1998.

3. The brief facts as culled out from the pleadings of the writ petition are that the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 had moved an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. alleging that Tulsi Ram (now dead), father of the petitioners, is trying to make encroachment on the public way, for which, he has no right. It was alleged in the application that the disputed public way is existing since last thirty five years and the applicant as well as other villagers are using that public way. On 04.07.1992, at about 10.00 a.m., the opposite parties tried to make construction on the public way, regarding which the application was also given on 26.06.1992.

4. The opposite parties had filed objection that there was no public way on the disputed land and the applicant should approach the competent civil court. The land in dispute was