Disobedience of civil court orders by the police and the consequent theft of the petitioner's crop led to the court's decision to direct the registration of a crime and initiate a departmental inquiry against the police officers.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides, for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed for following reliefs:-

(i) For registration of crime against respondent Nos.5 to 15 on the basis of complaint dated 10-10-2018 given to police by the petitioner;

(ii) Appointment of independent police officer for investigation of the crime;

(iii) Relief of direction to respondent No.2, District Superintendent of Police, to take steps for starting departmental action against respondent Nos.13 to 15, police officers for disobedience of the order of civil court.

3. There was civil dispute between the petitioner on one side and respondent Nos.5 and 7 on the other. The petitioner claims to be the owner of two portions of Gat No.181 situated at Ajantha, Tahsil Sillod, District Aurangabad. The land of respondent Nos.5 and 7 is adjacent to the land of the petitioner and it is the case of the petitioner that his land is situated between two pieces of the lands belonging to respondent Nos.5 and 7. One civil suit was filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.5 and 7 for relief of permanent injunction and it was decreed in his favour. The appeal filed against the said decision by these respondents was also dismissed much prior to the date of the incident.

4. Respondent No.5 is real brother of the petitioner and respondent No.7 is the wife of respondent No.5. Respondent No.6 is a son of respondent Nos.5 and 7. It is the case of the petitioner that these respondents were obstructing his peaceful possession over the aforesaid land and they were not allowing him to cultivate the land. It is his contention that after getting decree of permanent injunction he had applied for police protection to the executing court and the order of police protection was made in his favour first time on 19-7-2017. It is his case that only due to such order, he could cultivate his land. According to him, he had prepared barbed wire fencing around the aforesaid suit portion of the land. It is his contention that on 25-9-2018 he had applied to civil court in the execution proceeding for giving him protection of police as he wanted to do agricultural operations like supplying fertilizer and harvesting Soyabin crop. It is contended that such order was made in his favour by civil court.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that even when the order was communicated to Ajantha police station, they avoided to give him protection. It is contended that record was created to delay the protection like making inquiry about the necessity of giving protection. It is contended that as police protection was not given even after expressing apprehension by him that the aforesaid respondents were likely to cause damage to his crop and harvest the crop, the protection was not given and ultimately on 10-10-2018 these respondents committed theft of his Soyabin crop. It is contended that on 10-10-2018 itself he went to police station to give report. But the report which was tendered against respondent Nos.5 to 12 was not accepted and no action was taken against these respondents.

6. Regular Civil Suit No.100/2018 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sillod by the petitioner and the decree of injunction was given in his favour. In the said suit the aforesaid respondents had filed written statement. They had taken a defence that the aforesaid portion was initially belonging to Ramesh, real brother of petitioner and respondent No.5 and the portion was exchanged in the past by respondent No.5 with Ramesh and then the portion was purchased from successor of Ramesh. Ramesh is dead. Though such defence was taken, the civil court did not accept the defence and gave decree of injunction. In view of these circumstances, it can be said that it is not open to respondent Nos.5 and 7 to raise that dispute again. No stay is granted to the decree of injunction. It appears that civil court has held that the portion purchased by responden