[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2064 OF 2006. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2064 OF 2006. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2064 OF 2006. Dnyaneshwar Bhimrao Zunjar ..Petitioner V/s Bharat Dattu Dhekale & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Surel S. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Patil for responent No.1. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2007. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2007. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2007. P.C. . Heard Mr.Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.A. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner is Principal of Nagnath Vuidyalaya and Junior College Mohol, District Solapur. Respondent No.1 was employee of the said college, as a Clerk. His wife was also serving as a Lecturer in the same college. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before J.M.F.C., Mohol under section 464 and 466 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are also employees of the same institution alleging that they have forged and [2] fabricated the record of service of his wife. In that complaint, respondent No.1 moved an application on 14/2/2002 seeking issuance of search warrant for production of the disputed muster role for the period from 1/4/2002 to 6/4/2002. The learned J.M.F.C. passed the order on 7/2/2003 to issue search warrant to police Inspector Mohal for production of muster role. On the other hand, the petitioner alleged that the respondent No.1 himself as a Clerk was in custody of the record and the record was with him, he should be directed to produce the same. No order was passed on that application. In view of this, the petitioner had previously filed writ petition No.828/2005 in this Court seeking direction to the concerned Magistrate to decide his application. That application was allowed and by order dated 13th April, 2006, this Court had directed the concerned Judicial Magistrate to decide the application made by the petitioner. It appears that thereafter the petitioner moved the concerned Magistrate but the learned Magistrate rejected the application simply saying that he could not go back from earlier order. This was not proper on the part of the concerned Magistrate, particularly when this Court had directed to decide the application on its own merit. This shows [3] that the learned Magistrate did not comply with the direction given by this Court. 3. Anyhow, there is a dispute as to in whose custody the disputed record is. After some discussion at bar the learned Counsel for both the parties agreed that to settle the dispute the Police Inspector, Mohal be directed to search the premises of the petitioner, as as well respondent No.1 and his wife to trace out the disputed record. In my opinion, such a direction will sort out the matter and there may be some progress in the trial. 4. In view of the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, the learned J.M.F.C. Mohol is hereby directed to issue search warrant to the Police Inspector Mohal to search the premises of the petitioner, as well as respondent No.1 Bharat and his wife to search out the disputed record and to produce the same before the Court. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed off. The order passed by the trial Court in this respect stand modified as per this directions. [4] (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)