JUDGMENT - BARDE V.K., J.:---For the final disposal of this writ petition, it is not necessary to go into all the details pleaded by the petitioners in the petition and details given by the respondents in their respective affidavits in return. Considering the nature of dispute between petitioners and respondents Nos. 5 and 6, we do not propose to go into all details. The scope of the petition has to be limited to the relief sought by the petitioners and the facts which are relevant only for that purpose are being narrated. We make it clear that we are not expressing our opinion on any other matters which the parties have tried to bring on record.

2. The petitioners have contended that Kustha Seva Mandal is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It is running an Ayurvedic College and Hospital at Sakegaon at a distance of 5 kms. from Bhusawal. The petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary of the Trust since beginning while the respondent No. 5 was the Chairman of the Governing Council of the Trust since beginning. The petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1 and is also connected with the said Trust. The respondent No. 6 is the son of the respondent No. 5. There is dispute between petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 regarding the composition of the Governing Council and management of the Trust and that dispute has given rise to the present petition.

3. The petitioners have contended that on 1-3-1998, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 along with many other persons broke open all the locks of the office building and gate of the college premises, entered in the building unauthorisedly and took away registers and records. While doing so, they gave threats to the employees who were present there and created fear in their mind. The petitioner No. 1 filed report regarding this incident at Taluka Police Station, Bhusawal, on 1-3-1998 at about 10-30 p.m.

4. It is further contended that the respondent No. 4-Shri Wagh was the P.S.I. working at the Police Station at that time. He refused to visit the place of incident and he also refused to take any further action in this respect. The petitioners have contended that the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are very influential persons. They are political leaders and, therefore, the respondent No. 4 refused to take any action. The Director General of Police was informed on the same day about the incident and he also had directed the P.S.I. respondent No. 4 to take necessary action. It is further contended that the matter was told to Shri H.A. Choudhary, Chairman of Board of Trustees at Jalgaon and Shri Choudhary personally contacted Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, in this respect. The petitioners also approached the Ministers. Even then Police failed to take any steps as per law. It is also contended that there was cash of Rs. 41,000/- in the cupboard in the premises and that also was stolen.

5. It is further contended that on 4-3-1998, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Pohalkar-respondent No. 3 recorded statement of petitioner No. 2 in presence of Sakhdeo, the son-in-law of the petitioner No. 1. However, the Police did not record the correct and true version. It is further contended that the statement was not recorded by the Police as expected to be recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, that means during the course of investigation.

6. The petitioners, therefore, have contended that because of the pressure being brought by respondents Nos. 5 and 6, the Police are not taking proper action with respect to the information lodged at the Police Station on 1-3-1998. Petitioners, therefore, have prayed that the respondents-Police Officers be directed to register the offence on the basis of the information given on 1-3-1998 and the investigation of the matter be handed over to C.I.D.

7. The respondent No. 3- Shri Pohalkar, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhusawal, has filed his affidavit-in-reply. He has stated that the Superintendent of Police, Jalgao

Click Here to Read the rest of this document