{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 653 OF 2010 1. Abdul Sajed s/o Abdul Sattar Age-42 years, Occ-Business R/o Rauf Palace, Near Chelipura Police Chowki, Aurangabad 2. Mohammad Sameer s/o Abdul Sajed Age-22 years, Occ-Business R/o As above APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the police Inspector Cantonment Police Station, Aurangabad 2. The Commissioner of Police Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Advocate for applicants Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondents State ....... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 809 OF 2010 1. Praful s/o Mulchand Jain @ Bramhecha Age-39 years, Occ-Business & Agri R/o Plot NO.25, Shantiniketan Colony, Behind Kotla Colony, Aurangabad {2} 2. Balabai w/o Kishan Tusamb Age-55 years, Occ-Housewife R/o Gandhi Nagar, Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through PSO Chhawani Police Station Aurangabad 2. The Commissioner of Police Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Hemantkukar F Pawar, Advocate for applicants Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 10th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. By criminal application No.653/2010, father and son have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.292/2009 registered with Cantonment police station, Aurangabad for an offence punishable u/s 143, 147, 149, 394, 342, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The said offence came to be registered on 16.12.2009 at about 4.50 p.m. in respect of an incident dated 13.12.2009. It is alleged in the said complaint that the applicants in application No. 653/2010, along with 30 to 35 persons came at the spot and {3} started construction of a compound wall at Gut No.25 at Mitmita, situated at the outskirts of Aurangabad city and also assaulted the complainant. 2. So far as criminal application No.809/2010 is concerned, the same is filed by the applicants praying to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.293/2010 registered with Cantonment police station Aurangabad lodged by the brother of applicant No.1 in criminal application No.653/2010. The said complaint is lodged in respect of an incident dated 13.12.2009 which had occurred at about 6.00 a.m. It is alleged in the said complaint that the applicants, along with more than 100 persons came at the spot of the incident and tried to damage the compound wall, which was already constructed and also assaulted the complainant. 3. Heard learned counsel for respective applicants and learned APP. 4. From perusal of the documents on record it appears that out of Gut No.25 land admeasuring 5 acre 23 Gunthas, belongs to Dr.Patil. The said land was agreed to be purchased by applicant Mohammad Sameer under a registered agreement to sale dated 19.04.2008 from the power of attorney holder of Dr.Patil for a consideration of Rs.173 lacs. An earnest amount of Rs.71 lacs was paid at the time of execution of agreement to sale and possession {4} of 2 acres out of land 5 acres 23 gunthas was given to applicant Mohammad Sameer. Perusal of the said agreement to sale does not disclose as to which 2 acres of land was handed over to applicant Mohammad Sameer. Possession of the remaining land was to be handed over at the time of execution of final sale deed and after payment of balance amount. Pursuant to the said agreement, an advertisement was published in two Marathi daily newspapers and also in one Urdu daily newspaper on 21.04.2008 inviting objection from public at large in respect of the said transaction. It appears that in the month of December 2008, the original owner, Dr.Patil, intimated the applicant Mohammad Sameer that he has already alienated the said property admeasuring 5 acres 23 gunthas, which is purchased by brother and mother of complainant of CR No.292/2009. Documents on record show that on the strength of said sale deed executed in the month of December 2008, a civil suit bearing RCC No.337/2009 came to be filed by applicant Prafulla against applicants Abdul Sajed and Mohammad Sameer. However, it appears that no injunction order is passed in the said civil suit. Thus, it is clear that the property for which civil suit is filed is the same property involved in both the complaints. This Court need not enter to finalize the civil dispute, however can certainly take note of the fact that a civil dispute is pending between the parties, and it require to be considered as to whether the allegations are true and correct or not. In the complaint at CR No.293/2009 allegation is that the applicants in application No. 809/2010 along with more than 100 persons came and tried to {5} damage the compound wall. As against this there are allegations in CR No.293/2009 are that the applicants in application No. 653/2010 along with 30 to 35 persons came and tried to construct a compound wall to establish their possession over the suit property. 5. Learned APP has produced the spot Panchanama, which indicates that there was a compound wall to the property and it was partly damaged. Thus, it is clear that there was compound wall and hence there is no question of applicants Abdul Sajed and Mohammad Sameer to try to construct the compound wall and hence there is some substance in the complaint at CR No. 293/2009 that the applicants in application No.809/2010 reached at the spot and damaged the compound wall. From perusal of the entire record it is clear that both the parties are trying to establish their possession over the suit property for which civil dispute is already pending and now trying to settle their scores by filing criminal complaints against each other. 6. In this background, submissions of Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for applicants that due to ensuing Municipal Corporation elections, scheduled to be held in April 2010, it is tried to place the applicants behind the bars with a view to get them disqualified from contesting election. There appears some substance in the said submission. {6} 7. As a civil dispute is pending and by filing criminal complaints both the parties are trying to settle their scores and also trying to establish their possession over the suit property. The parties to prove their rights in the civil suit. 8. Considering the fact that civil dispute is pending, due to which the present complaints are filed, false implication cannot be ruled out and hence case is made out to enlarge all the applicants on anticipatory bail. 9. In the result, both the applications are allowed. The interim protection granted earlier in both the applications is hereby confirmed and the same to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. Parties are at liberty to move for regular bail after filing of the charge sheet. All the applicants are hereby warned not to take law in hand and create any law and order problem. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln653-809-10