1

906 Cri Writ Petition 94 of 2017.odt

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2017

Daga S/o Sakatsinhg Girase

Age:- 60 years, Occu:- Agriculture

R/o Po. Kuve Tq Shirpur Dist Dhule

... PETITIONER

(ORIG. COMPLAINANT)

V E R S U S

1]

Narayan S/o Sakatsing Girase

Age:- 68 Years, Occu:- Agriculture

2]

Rokadsing @ Bhaiyya Narayansing Girase

Age:- 31 years, Occu:- Agriculture

3]

Dada S/o Narayansing Girase

Age:- 29 years, Occu:- Agriculture

All R/o Salave Tq. Sindkheda Dist Dhule.

RESPONDENTS

(ORIG ACCUSED NO 1 TO 3)

4]

The State of Maharashtra.

... RESPONDENT

…

Mr. Vikrant P Raje, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mrs. S. T. Kazi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. K. S. Patil, APP for Respondent No.4 / State.

...

CORAM :

T. V. NALAWADE, J.

DATE : 25^th June, 2019.

2

906 Cri Writ Petition 94 of 2017.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT:

.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard

both the sides for final disposal.

2

The present proceeding is filed for relief of quashing and

setting aside the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Sindkheda, District Dhule in Criminal M.A. No.24 of 2016 and

also the decision of the Criminal Revision No.33 of 2016, which was

pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule.

Said proceeding was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class by the present Petitioner and prayer was made for making order

of investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for investigating the offence committed by present

Respondent Nos.1 to 3. It appears that Respondent No.1 is the real

brother of Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are sons of

Respondent No.1.

3

A copy of said proceeding is on record. It is the

contention of Petitioner that the offences punishable under Sections

3

906 Cri Writ Petition 94 of 2017.odt

420, 467, 468, 471, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code are committed

by the Accused persons. Dispute is in respect of land Gat No.288

situated at Sindkheda. It is the contention of the Petitioner that this

land is ancestral property of Petitioner and Respondent No.1 and in

revenue record also, there is entry of the names of Petitioner and

Respondent No.1 as owners and they are possessing their separate

shares. It is contended that he had not taken any loan on the land

and he has not given any consent to Respondent No.1 to take loan. It

is contended that when he collected 7/12 extract on 9^th December,

2015, he realized that Respondent No.1 had taken loan of

Rs.1,50,000/- by producing 7/12 extract of Gat No.288. It is

contended that after making inquiry, he realized that Respondent No.1

had manipulated 7/12 extract to show that the name of Petitioner was

deleted from revenue record to show that only Respondent No.1 was

the owner of the property. It is contended that by doing this mischief,

the aforesaid offences are committed by Respondent No.1.

4

In support of the aforesaid allegations, there is 7/12

extract showing that the names of both present Petitioner and

Respondent No.1 were entered in the revenue record. The area of

4

906 Cri Writ Petition 94 of 2017.odt

the land is shown as 4 Hectare 49 Ares. This document also shows

that the name of Daga was circled and Mutation No.94 was shown as

mutation under which name of Daga was deleted. This 7/12 extract

was delivered on 5^th June, 2006 by Talathi. Other 7/12 extract dated

1^st February, 2016 shows that the names are still there, but Mutation

Nos.94 and 109 are shown and in that record there is a charge shown

of Central Bank of India of Rs.1,50,000/-. The names of both

Petitioner and Respondent No.1 are there and in cultivation column it

is shown that the owner is cultivating the entire land. A copy of

mortgage document executed in favour of the bank is on record and it

shows that on 16^th June, 2006, Respondent No.1 (Narayan)