1 Criminal Writ Petition No.44/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.44 OF 2011 Ramdas s/o Pralhad Shakkarwar ... PETITIONER VERSUS Bharat s/o Vishwanath Raminwar & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri P.S. Paranjape, Advocate for petitioner Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 Shri G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent No.15/ State ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 15th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard extensively. The petitioner had purchased Plot No.45 at Wadi, Taluka and District Nanded from respondent No.1 Bharat on 1st September 2009 under registered sale deed. Since the respondent No.1 was the vendor, the description of the property was allegedly provided by the respondent No.1 to the Bond Writer. The grievance is, the boundaries in the sale deed are changed and the petitioner alleged, that it was at the behest of the respondent No.1 and the Government officials 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.44/2011 colluded in the attempt of said change of the boundaries of the property, whereby it was the petitioner who suffered loss. 2. A civil litigation between the parties was already initiated being Regular Civil Suit No.96/2010 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, concerning the said plot. 3. The respondent No.1 also has filed prosecution in terms of O.M.C.A. No. 255/2010 concerning the same subject matter, based on which investigation in terms of section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code were issued and the offence was registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.70/2010. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded, did not entertain the complaint of the petitioner for investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to police. Instead thereof, the learned Judge has observed in para 4 of the order that, since investigation in Crime No.70/2010 is already going on it would bejust and propert to proceed the matter i.e the complaint of the petitioner under Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code and he had adjourned the matter for verification of the petitioner herein. The exercise that the learned Judge has carried, in the set of above referred facts, cannot be disputed to brand as illegal. It was the course available which discretion he has judiciously exercised. 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.44/2011 5. At the same time, it was not expected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class to have looked into documents tendered by the then non applicant/ respondent No. 1 herein to arrive at conclusion which he has drawn. However, that mistake being cured in view of observations in para 4, it is simply ignored. 6. The other observations of the learned Judge that the complaint is a counterblast to the crime registered against the petitioner, could not be made and the learned Judge will not be influenced by the said observation. Taking these aspects into consideration, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and confirmed by the revisional Court in Revision No.117/2010 (Exhibit D). Criminal Writ Petition dismissed. 7. Though there is nothing prejudicial in the mind of the learned Judicial Magistrate who passed the said order, however, in the fairness, the learned Sessions Judge shall place the complaint of petitioner before another Judicial Magistrate, First Class in the same district. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) fmp/cwp44.11