JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE. J:--This criminal application is for quashing the criminal proceedings instituted on a private complaint being Criminal Case No. RTC 75 of 1992 on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed, for offences under sections 392, 395 and 447 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. In order to appreciate the question whether the allegations made in the complaint do or do not constitute offences complained of, regard may be had to few facts which are either admitted or not seriously disputed between the parties. There is land Survey No. 131/1 admeasuring 3 acres situated at village Songaon Taluka district Ahmednagar. This land claims to be of the ownership of the complainant but the said fact has been seriously disputed by the petitioners. It is the case of the complainant that on 7-2-1992 in the night the petitioners-accused harvested the crops standing on the disputed land. At the time of harvesting they were armed with deadly weapons. It was therefore alleged that they are liable to be punished for offences under sections 392, 395 and 447 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned Magistrate in his impugned order referred to the litigation between the parties clearly making out an undisputed fact that there exist a bona fide dispute between the parties over the possession of the land. For instance, the father of the complainant had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 157 of 1988 against the accused for injunction claiming exclusive possession based upon partition. That suit was dismissed holding that the land was owned jointly by the complainants father and the accused persons. That means that the land in dispute was held to be in joint possession. It appears that another suit came to be filed in which the complainant claimed his exclusive possession. Pending that dispute, the incident has taken place and the learned Magistrate after referring to the material evidence adduced by the complainant, observed that "the evidence shows that the accused Nos. 1 to 11 have cut Jawar from the land Survey No. 131 even though their possession and the possession of the complainant is joint. As per own showing of the accused the complainant has ten annas share in the land Survey No. 131. The accused persons have cut the crops including the share of the complainant." It is in that view of the matter, according to the learned Magistrate, the offences under sections 392, 395 and 447 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been made out. The learned Magistrate, therefore, issued the process by the impugned order.

4. It is well established that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers for quashing the criminal proceedings only when the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence or that the exercise of power is necessary either to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. No flexible guidelines or rigid formula can be set out and it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case where such power could be exercised. (See Smt. Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lala and others)1, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1379.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 does not dispute the proposition that where the property is removed in the assertion of a contesting claim of a right, however, ill founded that claim may be, removal thereof does not constitute theft. In other words, a claim of right in good faith in bona fide belief takes away the act of taking away the property from theft and it is mainly a question of fact whether such belief exists or not. Such an act of taking the property does not amount to theft unless there is not only no legal right but no appearance or colour of a legal right. The expression "colour of a legal right", it has been observed, is meant not a pretence but a fair pretence not a complete absence of obligation but a bona fide claim, however, weak. The question whether the accused persons removed the harvested crops

Click Here to Read the rest of this document