1 CR.APL. NO.574/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.574 OF 2011 1. Subhash s/o Manikrao Birajdar, Age: 65 years, Ocu: Agril., r/o Ghuggi ( Sangvi), Tq.Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur. 2. Manik s/o Subhash Birajdar, Age: 32 years, Occu. Agri., r/o. As above. 3. Gopal s/o Subhash Birajdar, Age: 28 years, Occu. Agril. & Service, r/o as above. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Police Inspector Police Station Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:10/2/2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.D.R.Irale Patil extensively. The accused/applicants, claiming to be protected 2 CR.APL. NO.574/2011 tenants, seek discretion in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.3/2010, registered at Shirur Anantpal Police Station, dist. Latur. 2. Counsel has given history of litigation between accused/applicant no.1 and his cousin over the agricultural property to impress that the accused/applicant has no role in theft of the Government record from Tehsil office. The accused/applicants submit, one Mr.Suryawanshi, a Police Constable is harassing the accused/applicants with a threat to settle the matter and, consequently, without any role of the accused/applicant, he has been falsely implicated. 3. Though in the FIR it is not that the accused/applicant is referred as the suspect, the report/FIR of the Clerk Udhav Malappa Mane of the Tehsil illustrate that it was on the direction of the Tehsildar he has informed that the original record in respect of land Survey Nos.5A and 23 , which are in custody of the Record Keeper, could not be traced in the office as it was so demanded by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nilanga, for the purpose of inquiry. Since the original record concerning the proceedings under Sections 37A, 38E, 58(C) (G) of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, 1950, concerning said survey Nos. 5A and 23 was missing, as stated above, the report is lodged. 3 CR.APL. NO.574/2011 4. Making inquiry to the accused/applicants cannot be said to be an hollow formality. The suspicion that has been revolving against the accused/applicants, needs to be answered which does not call for exercise of powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 5. It is inconceivable that merely one Police Constable is instigating either the Tehsil authorities or the cousin of the accused/applicant to resolve the controversy of the Tenancy Court. Application lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/574-11crapl