IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.495 OF 2011 Madanlal Roopchand Gandhi -- Applicant. V/s. 1. Narayan Choturam @ Chotulal Sharma & Ors. 2. Rajesh Ratanchand Jain. 3. Ratanchand Tulsaji Jain. 4. Santosh Ratanchand Jain. 5. Ramesh Choturam Sharma. 6. Rajesh Sadanand Salavi, 7. The State of Maharashtra. -- Respondents Ms. Gauri Godse, Advocate, for the Applicant. Smt. P.P. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent No.7. CORAM :- J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE :- 26th September, 2011. P.C. 1. The Original Complainant seeks leave to prefer appeal against acquittal in Sessions Case No.124 of 2004 by Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag for the offences punishable U/s.395 & 506 r/w.34 of the I.P.C. 2. According to the Complainant he was running business in a shop of one Dattatraya Vasudeo Vaidya and was paying rent to his brother Bhaskar Vasudeo Vaidya. Said Bhaskar sold the premises to accused Nos.1 & 2 without informing the Complainant. On 13th March, 1998, when the Complainant was unloading the building material in the rented premises, the accused persons abused the employees of the Complainant. The report was lodged by the Complainant but no cognizance was taken. On next day again accused Nos. 1 to 5 came there and gave threat to the complainant, on that day also no cognizance was taken by the police. Then he filed a Civil Suit and on 20th March, 1998, the Civil Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo. According to him inspite of knowledge of the order, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 demolished the rented premises on 21st March, 1998 and threatened him. At that time they had also taken away building material worth Rs.4,00,000/- from the godown of the Complainant. He lodged report with the police but no action was taken. He filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15th March, 2000 and the case was committed to Sessions Court. 3. The Sessions Court found several discrepancies in the evidence led by the complainant. There was delay of about two years in filing the complaint, after the incident. For this there is no satisfactory explanation. The learned counsel for the Complainant contended that, he had lodged report on 24th March, 1998, but police informed him for the first time in February, 1999 that the case was closed, as matter was amicably settled between the parties. According to him, he had informed the police that there was no settlement, but inspite of that no action was taken. 4. Firstly, it appears that there was Civil dispute. Though according to him he had filed suit on 20th March, 1998 and got status quo order. The incident occurred on 21st March, 1998 the report was lodged by him before the police three days after the incident. He was aware that the police had not taken action and still he did not file the complaint for a long time. In February, 1999 police had informed him in writing that they had closed the case without any action. Inspite of that he took 13 months more to file the complaint, before the Court. In my opinion inordinate delay in lodging complaint in such criminal matter itself is sufficient ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. 4. In view of the above I find no substance in the present application and the appeal. 5. In the result, leave to prefer an appeal against acquittal refused and the application stands rejected. ( J.H. BHATIA, J.)