1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1145 OF 2007 Abbas Mohamed Mulla and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Abbas Abdul Kadir Bhatkar & Ors... Respondents Mr.R.F.Lambay for the petitioner Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P. for the State Mr.Sachindra B. Shetye for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2008 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Ratnagiri in Criminal Case No.1 of 2002 dated 09.02.04. This order is challenged by preferring a Criminal Revision No.48 of 2004 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri who has confirmed the order. 2. The main contention of the learned Advocate 2 for the petitioners is that the provisions of section 145 of Cr.P.C. have not been complied by the Magistrate while passing the order dated 09.02.04. He submits that the Magistrate must arrive at a subjective decision that the case does exist against the petitioners and only then can evidence be led before him. It is submitted that the Magistrate has violated the provisions of section 145 by merely reproducing the police report in his order, without considering the evidence. 3. The submission of the learned advocate is unacceptable since there was a preliminary enquiry upon which an order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 22.04.2003. Thereafter evidence of the parties was led and the Magistrate has arrived at a conclusion that the respondents do have a right to continue with the possession of Survey no.78 Hissa No.9 admeasuring 0.25 ares in Village Bhatye. The petitioners had been restrained from creating any obstruction in the possession of the land of the respondents. 4. The learned advocate submits that the 3 petitioners have already challenged the mutation entries recorded against them and therefore, such an injunction ought not to have been passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. The provisions of section 145 (6) makes it clear that the order of the Magistrate would continue till such time that the party who is declared to be entitled to possession is evicted therefrom in due course of law. In such circumstances, no interference is called for with the orders of both the courts below. Petition is therefore, rejected. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.)