(1) CRI-W.P.-640.2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 640 OF 2007 1. Dadarao S/o Dhondiram Borade Age : 60 years, Occu.: Registered Special Land Acquisition Officer, R/o CIDCO, Aurangabad Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad 2. Chandrashekar S/o Pundlikrao Kalse Age : 49 years, Occu.: Service, Deputy Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Jalna 3. Sudhakar S/o Venkatrao Narwade Age : 51 years, Occu.: Service, Sectional Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Jalna 4. Dasopant S/o Laxmanrao Joshi, Age : 47 years, Occu.: Service, Clerk, Minor Irrigation Department, Jalna 5. Anil S/o Diagambarrao Deshpande Age : 51 years, Occu.: Service, Clerk, Minor Irrigation Department, Jalna, R/o. Shivnagar, Ambad Road, Jalna 6. Sanjay S/o Murlidhar Madan, Age : 70 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Keligavhan, Tq. Badanapur, District : Jalna 7. Subhash S/o Muralidhar Madan, Age : 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o As above (2) CRI-W.P.-640.2007 8. Kalyan S/o Murlidhar Madan, Age : 42 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o As abovbe .. PETITIONERS (Orig. Accused) VERSUS 1. Damodhar S/o Bhika Madan, Age : 70 years, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o Keligavhan, Tq. Badanapur, District : Jalna 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Police Station Badanapur, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna .. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 16TH MARCH, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 23RD MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard. Rule was issued on 6.5.2008. Final hearing was expedited. 2. The petitioners question the propriety and legality of the order dated 9.7.2007 of learned Chief (3) CRI-W.P.-640.2007 Judicial Magistrate in terms of section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the orders of learned Sessions Judge, Jalna dated 4.10.2007 concerning the FIR-I-2/2007 dated 17.9.2007 for offence under section 420, 468, 469, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners no. 1 to 5 are the Government Officers, 6 to 8 are agriculturists and nephew of respondent no.1-complainant. Land gat no. 179 admeasuring 18 Acre 5 Guntha of village Keligavahan was ancestral property of respondent no.1 and father of respondent nos. 6 to 8. In partition, 9 Acre 2 Guntha came to the share of respondent no.1- complainant, while 9 Acre 2 Guntha in the share of Murlidhar-father of petitioner nos. 6 to 8. The controversy revolves to so called excess compensation paid to respondent nos. 6 to 8 relating to a well and trees in the property which was determined to the share of respondent no.1 and to the petitioner nos. 6 to 8 with equal share. 4. Entire Gat no. 179 was acquired for purpose of Rajewadi storage tank. The petitioner nos. 1 to 5 were the respective Officers effecting acquisition (4) CRI-W.P.-640.2007 proceedings. Compensation of Rs.6,02,228/- was received by respondent no.1 as referred in the award with 50% compensation of well. He has not received/collected compensation of said 50% of well, the amount is lying with the respective Land Acquisition Officer. Respondent no.1 preferred a Reference in terms of section 18 of Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. It is said, the grievance of respondent no.1 was he has received inadequate compensation than petitioner nos. 6 to 8 and consequently has nursed vengeance against the petitioner nos. 6 to 8. 5. On 9.7.2007, respondent no.1 Damodhar initiated proceedings by Application no. 357 of 2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed following order on 9.7.2007: "The offence levelled against the non- applicant are of cognizable and non- bailable. Hence concerned P.I. is directed to register crime and submit final report as per section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." Thereafter, it seems investigation was carried and report was tendered by the Police Officer, which was (5) CRI-W.P.-640.2007 followed in order dated 9.7.2007 below exhibit 1 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. "Register the case R.C.C./S.T.C./M.A./357/2007 and be assigned to the Court of IV Jt. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna for disposal, according to law". Without adverting to the merits in the accusations of the complainant, the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate illustrate it was a direction to the concerned Police to register the crime and submit the final report as per section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The allegations of respondent no.1 taken together illustrate that all the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention purchased a stamp of Rs.100/- in the name of the complainant/respondent no.1, got it written by somebody and ensured that the complaint of respondent no.1 before the superiors is withdrawn. According to respondent no.1 patent false panchanama in respect of existence of trees or fruit crop was collusively prepared. There was no water available for the purpose of irrigating the land hence no question of (6) CRI-W.P.-640.2007 fruit bearing crop. The matter was not enquired in depth and the petitioners no. 1 to 5-the Government Officials conspired to pay the compensation to petitioner nos. 6 to 8 dis-proportionate to their eligibility. 7. The respondent no.1 as could be seen did not approach Police in terms of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but filed complaint seeking investigation in terms of section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not direct investigation, but passed orders to register the F.I.R. which is beyond the scope of powers under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The controversy between the respondent no.1 and the petitioners nos. 6 to 8 has reached upto this Court in Civil Revision Application no. 53 of 2006 and this Court has observed that the remedy lies under the Land Acquisition Act and nowhere else. In this situation of the matter, since the respondent no.1 has received compensation for the area of his property acquired and after being dis-satisfied he (7) CRI-W.P.-640.2007 has preferred reference in terms of section 18, it does not suit to him to allege that false documents are prepared by petitioner nos. 1 to 5 conjointly to cause benefit to petitioner nos. 6,7 and 8. If the two houses in the share of the respondent no.1 were acquired, and having not satisfied with the extraneous consideration of named Officer, the remedy to respondent no.1 with all certainties is in terms of Land Acquisition Act and not by way of criminal prosecution. The reference of forged stamp paper of Rs.100/- purchased in the name of respondent no.1 to indicate that he has no grievance against petitioner nos. 6 to 8, has no bearing as the respondent no.1 is at liberty to establish the falsity of such stamp of Rs.100/- to be bogus, fabricated in the appropriate proceedings in terms of section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. There was virtually no financial loss or cheating or forgery of the documents belonging to the respondent no.1-the complainant. 9. Considering these aspects of the matter, after 9.7.2007, registration of crime by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was uncalled for. He (8) CRI-W.P.-640.2007 should have taken care about the non-availability of the material to prosecute the Government Officials- petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and receiving compensation by respondent no.1 from the said authority. Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. Criminal prosecution vide F.I.R. I-2/2007 dated 17.9.2007 is set aside. Accused/petitioners are discharged. Rule made absolute. Sd/- [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] arp