1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.62 OF 2009 1. Vithal Ramji Kolhe Age:73 Occu: Agril., R/o Jamb(BK) , Tq.Mukhed, Dist.Nanded. 2. Sharad S/o Arun Kolhe Age:21 Yrs.Occu:Service, R/o as above. 3. Balaji S/o Arun Kolhe Age:24 Yrs. Occu:Agril, R/o as above. Appellants V/s 1. The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Mukhed, Tq.Mukhed, Dist.Nanded. 2 2. Shri.Machindra S/o Tulshiram Gaikwad Age:35 Yrs. Occu: Agril., R/o Jamb(Bk) , Tq.Mukhed, Dist.Nanded. Respondents -------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.D.Gunale Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. K.S.Patil A.P.P. For the State. ------------------------------------------------------- [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] [DATE : 22nd July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made, returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel and learned A.P.P. 2. The petitioners challenge the F.I.R. registered vide Crime No.148/2008 for offence punishable U/Sec.295 r.w.34 of the Indian Penal Code at Mukhed Police Station (Dist.Nanded). 3. There is a school called "Nitiniketan Vidyalaya" at village Jamb (BK). The petitioner No.1 is 3 Secretary, the petitioner no.2 is clerk and the petitioner no.3 is the school teacher of said school. The respondent no.2 filed a complaint application on 28/10/2008 which was treated as F.I.R. The respondent no.2 alleged that the petitioners had destructed the photo frames of respected leaders, such as of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, Annasabhau Sathe and Dr.Radhakrishnan, which were hanged in the office of the school. They defiled the images of the great leaders and thereby caused hurt to the public members of the society. The police registered offence vide Crime No. 148/2008 against the petitioners. 4. Heard Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. Smt.Reddy. Though served, the respondent no.2 (complainant) did not appear. 5. What emerges from the record is that there is dispute regarding burial place. The villagers have taken resolution in the village panchayat meeting that the place of burial ground in land Gat No.433 shall be restored to the village panchayat. The resolution was 4 rendered in the meeting held on 18/10/2008 to take back possession of the alleged encroached portion. The petitioner no.2 lodged a report on 18/10/2008 at Mukhed police station, alleging that several public members including Sitaram More, Manoj Gaud, Chandrakant Gaud, etc. committed trespass in the premises of the school and got fixed board of public grave yard/burial ground and they had broken the photo frames of the respected leaders by entering into the office premises. It is pertinent to note that the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner no.2 was before in time and was registered at 7.45 p.m. on 18/10/2008. On the next day, the common application was given by villagers about destruction of photo frames by the petitioners. Thereafter on 28/10/2008, the F.I.R. was registered on basis of report lodged by the respondent no.2. 6. Considering the material placed on record, it is quite clear that the F.I.R.lodged by the respondent no.2 is probably the counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner no.2. The real dispute appears to be in 5 respect of place of burial ground/graveyard. The dispute is of civil nature. The members of the village panchayat resolved to get back possession of the said described land from school. In other words, it is undisputed that the said disputed premises are in actual possession of the school. Whether the possession of the school is unauthorized or it is legal one is the question to be decided by the Civil Court. The members of the village panchayat and the respondent no.2 could not have taken law in their hands. The petitioners had no reason to destroy/destruct photo frames which were hanged on walls of the office of the school. It prima facie appears that members of the village panchayat and the group of some villagers, including the respondent no.2 entered in the disputed premises on 18/10/2008 and copy was fixed on a board showing that the disputed site was that of public grave yard. The complaint by the petitioner no.2 is earlier in time, yet it was subsequently registered and crime is registered after recording statement of the petitioner no.2 on 25/10/2008. It is more probable that the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.2 is outcome of vendetta and by way of counter blast to the F.I.R. 6 lodged by the petitioner no.2. Needless to say, the impugned F.I.R. is filed with oblique intention to abuse the process of law. 7. For the reasons aforestated, I am inclined to hold that the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. The petition is therefore allowed. The impugned F.I.R. and any other proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly. (V.R.Kingaonkar) Judge DSP/Cri.WP62.09