1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1580/2008. Satish s/o Ramkishen Maniyar - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through P..Chakur P.S. Chakur, Tq. Chakur and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.R.F.Totla, Advocate for Applicant; Mrs.B.R.Khekale, APP for Respondent no.1/State. Mr.D.M.Chamte, Advocate for Respondent No.2; Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 17th August, 2009. PER COURT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of parties. 2) A private complaint being R.C.C.No. 28/2008 is initiated by Sitaram Gangadhar Musale, alleging that from land Gut No. 435, 1 hectare and 41 R. property was purchased by him in the name of his minor son on 20th May, 1990 from 2 earlier owner Bhishmanarayan Kendre. According to the complainant, Bhishmanarayan Kendre had purchased the property from earlier owner Bandya s/o Sangayya Eklinge on 11.12.1985 by virtue of Sale deed no. 2843/1985. However, said Bhishmanarayan also did not get the land mutated in his name. The applicant herein claims that he is in possession of 1 hectare and 41 R. land as owner and possessor. He had made an application to the Talathi concerned for effecting mutation to the extent of 1 hectare and 41 R., however, the Talathi has informed that the mutation could not be done as Bandya s/o Sangaya Eklinge (the then owner of the property prior to 11.12.1985) was holding 1 hectare 7 R. of the property. 3) Reading the complaint as a whole, even if mutation no. 480 in respect of Gut no. 435 is erroneously made, prima facie there is remotely any concern or role that could be played by present applicant (original accused no.2) while effecting the mutation. The matter more leans to consolidation scheme and if there is any mismatch 3 of holding, it is apparent the original complainant has to seek redressal before the revenue authorities. 4) In the situation, the proceedings initiated against the present applicant – Satish s/o Ramkishan Maniyar could not have been continued by the complainant or the order of issuance of process needs to be quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicant herein. Hence, order - 5) The Criminal Application is allowed. The proceedings, initiated in pursuance of Crime No. 4/2008 registered with Police Station, Chakur, against the applicant, are quashed and set aside. 6) Rule is made absolute in above terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran1580.08