1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 212 OF 2010 Mahadeo s/o. Trimbak Gunale, R/o. Shivani (Khurd), Tq. & Dist. Latur. ....Applicant. Versus Sarubai w/o. Trimbak Gunale R/o. Bori, Tq. & Dist. Latur and others. ....Respondents. Mr. A.H. Kasliwal, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for respondent No. 4/State. CORAM: A. V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED: 1st September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This revision is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision No. 1/2010. 2. Facts leading to this case are as under :- The applicant is step-son of one Sarubai – respondent No. 1. It is his case that during his childhood, his father purchased two pieces of lands in his name. He asserted that he, thus, became owner of these lands and after his father’s death, the lands stood in his name. He said 2 that the respondent No. 1, his step-mother, demanded maintenance from him and also filed a civil suit, demanding partition of ancestral property, etc. He said further that recently he learnt that vide mutation entry No. 680, the respondent No. 1 – his step mother, got her name included in the revenue record as the owner of the lands referred to above. According to him, this act of his step-mother and the Talathi concerned amounted to offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned Magistrate, indeed, without examining the crux of the complaint, blindly passed the order, directing police investigation under section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The respondent challenged this order before the Revisional Court and the learned Judge of the Revisional Court set aside the impugned order. 3. The question is, whether the learned J.M.F.C. was justified in passing the order, directing police investigation in this complaint. After careful perusal of the complaint, the copy of which is annexed to the application, I found that it is very casually drafted complaint. The applicant/complainant even did not mention in the plaint that the lands in question stood in his name. He did not mention as to when mutation entry No. 680 was taken. He further did not mention that whether the mutation entry No. 680 caused removal of his name from the revenue record. The complainant casually stated in para No. 4 of the complaint that the respondent and other accused collusively and illegally took 3 mutation entry No. 680 by scoring of entries taken earlier in the revenue record. The applicant/complainant did not mention as to what revenue entry taken earlier was scored of illegally by the concerned Talathi. It is clear from the complaint that there is no allegation of cheating made in the complaint and yet the applicant/complainant demanded issuance of process against the accused under section 420, I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C. certainly fell into trap laid by the applicant/complainant and it appears very clearly that he casually passed the order, directing the police investigation. It is now a days seen that the Magistrates pass such orders very casually without reading the complaint and understanding its crux. In view of above, the revision stands dismissed. [ A. V. NIRGUDE, J.] ssc/cra212.10