1 WP 1505-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1505 OF 2010 Anil Rajaram Kelkar .Petitioner V/s. Ranjitsingh Jaysing Rane .Respondents & ors Mr.Nitin Gangal, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for Respondent No.13 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. . This Writ Petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 12th February, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Dapoli dismissing the petitioner's complaint and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his Order dated 29th January, 2010. The respondents had allegedly barged into the petitioner's house and 5 Kg Sandal wood, some Teak wood and 53 logs of wood of other category were seized 2 WP 1505-2010 from the petitioner's house by respondent No. 1, who is Forest Officer. This took place on 15th December, 2006. It is the petitioner's contention that at that time he was badly beaten up by the Forest Officer and his sub- ordinates. Therefore, on 3rd February, 2007, he filed a complaint before the Magistrate. The Magistrate ordered investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Report of the investigation was against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate then proceeded to dismiss the complaint. 2. Upon revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that though the petitioner's complaint was supported by four witnesses, they were his servants and therefore, possibility of their deposing in favour of the petitioner at the instance of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. He observed that the injuries on the petitioner 3 WP 1505-2010 could have occured when petitioner tried to obstruct the serach and seizure by the Forest Officer of Sandal, Teak and other category of wood at his house. He also observed that when petitioner was produced before the Magistrate upon his arrest, he had not complained of ill treatment before the Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that it was settled principle of law that the Magistrate before whom the complaint is made and who refers the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not have to go by the report that may be filed by the police but the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the material produced. Yet the learned Additional Sessions Judge states that on application of mind, the Magistrate has to come on proper conclusion. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner may have a point, when he submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has entered 4 WP 1505-2010 into appreciation of evidence at the stage of issuance of process. Still that does not make the order perverse, since the totality of reasons given are sound and therefore, order does not call for any interference in exercise of powers under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)