1. This revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 preferred by the petitioner/accused is directed against an order dated 17th March 2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 21/2010 by the Special Judge (Dacoity), Bhind (M.P.), framing thereby the charges against the petitioners/accused for commission of offence punishable under section 394 read with section 397 of IPC, in alternative under sections 394 and 450 of IPC read with section 13 of the MPDVPK and in alternative under section 458 of IPC read with section 13 of the MPDVPK Act.

2. The facts in short, just for the decision of this petition are that on 1st January, 2010 at about 21.15 hours at Pustak Bazar Bhind, accused Jitendra Bajpai @ Kallu, Brajendra Bajpai @ Bantu along with two unknown persons went to the shop of complainant Raj Kumar Jain, on motorcycle and in a jeep and asked the complainant to handover vacant possession of the shop and house. When the complainant objected to it, they entered into his shop by breaking the lock open of the shutter and tried to forcibly occupy it. They also took the box kept in the shop having emergency Glass worth Rs. Twenty thousand. It is alleged that there was a civil dispute over the shop between the complainant and the accused and the suit was decreed in favour of accused Brajendra Bajpai against which, the complainant preferred an appeal and moved an application for staying the proceeding of eviction, which is stated to be pending before the civil Court. On the report of the complainant, an FIR was lodged and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court Bhind. In trial, the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners-accused for commission of offences mentioned above, hence this revision.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order framing charge against the petitioners/accused is not based on the evidence as adduced along with the charge sheet. It is submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that against the judgment dated 23rd December 2009 passed in Civil Suit No. 39-Al09 by the Additional District Judge Bhind in favour of accused Brajendra Bajpai and against the perpetual injunction issued in favour of the said accused restraining the complainant not to interfere into his peaceful possession, without legal resources, an appeal was preferred before the appellate Court. Hence, it is requested that by allowing the revision, the petitioners be acquitted of the charges as framed by the trial Court.

4. The learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the prayer _ of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the revision.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the copies of the charge-sheet filed with the revision including applicability of law to the case.

6. On perusal of the FIR, statements recorded by the Investigating Officer vis-av-vis other material gathered during investigaion and produced along with the charge sheet before the trial Court, it appears that prior to the present incident, a civil suit was filed by accued Brajendra Bajpai (Petitioner No.2) against the complainant-defendant and others seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was decreed in favour of the accused and against the complainant. Against the said judgment, the complainant preferred an appeal along with an application for stay. Due to winter vacation in civil Courts, the application was pending for consideration. As per prosecution own version, the accused/petitioners went to the disputed place and tried to obtain possession of the shop which was in possession of the complainant. During investigation, the box of emergency glasses which was forcibly taken from the shop, was seized from the house of accused Jitendra Bajpai, however the alleged two unknown persons and the loading jeep were not traced out, during investigation.

7. It may be seen from the facts o