1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.427 OF 2008 Chandrakant Kantilal Shah (Sonawala) and others ..Petitioners. Vs. Subhash Pawar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kalwa Division, Thane and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Charanjeet Chandrapal for the Petitioners. Mr. S.R. Borulkar, PP with Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State. .... CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI and, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD 6th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing S. No./ H. No. 63/1, 85/1, 45/1, 57/0, 65/0, 68/0, 72/0, 73/A, 78/0, 69/0 and 87/0 admeasuring approximately 300 acres, located at Khari Village, Thane (“the said land” for short). It is their grievance that the said land has been encroached upon by trespassers who claim to be the tenants under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It appears that several proceedings are pending in the tenancy Court in respect of the said land. The Petitioners claim to have succeeded in some of the proceedings. We are also informed that a civil suit is filed by the Petitioners in 2 the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane and a status quo order is passed in respect of the said land. The contention of the Petitioners is that though they have purchased the said land under a valid sale deed, from one Dayalal Acharya portions of the land are being illegally sold by one Rudra Tripathi and Kishore Shah by buying them from the alleged tenants. The petitioners have therefore prayed that a direction may be given to the State to take preventive measures under Sections 107, 110 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('the Code' for short) and police security and protection be provided to the Petitioners at their costs. The Petitioners have also prayed that the State may be directed to file further cases against those found guilty in illegally selling parts of the said land. The Petitioners have further prayed that the police may be directed to file revised charge sheet after investigation and ensure that the other accused are also tried in the pending case. 2. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners who has reiterated the averments made in the petition. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Borulkar who has taken us through the affidavit of Mr. Khanderao Vidhate, Senior Inspector of 3 Police attached to Kalwa Police Station, District Thane. From the affidavit we find that the police have initiated proceedings under Section 107 of the Code against Jagdish Patil and Krishna Bhagat, both residents of Kharegaon, Kalwa, District Thane. The said proceedings are in progress. The affidavit further goes on to say that in respect of C.R. No.168 of 2006 dated 10th July, 2006 registered under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Kalwa Police Station at the Petitioners' instance, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane against Jagdish Patil, Yashwant Gulvi, Arjun Patil, Santosh Pawar and Krishna Bhagat. In that case charge has already been framed on 18th August, 2006. The said case is pending disposal. Having perused the affidavit, we are of the opinion that this is not a case where the police have shown inaction. We are, however, of the opinion that the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code which are pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Police holding power as Executive Magistrate, Kalwa must be expedited. We therefore direct the Assistant Commissioner of Police holding power as Executive Magistrate to dispose of the said proceedings expeditiously. Mr. Borulkar, Learned PP states that if any further 4 complaints are made indicating that some other persons are also involved in similar cases, the police authorities will carry out necessary investigation and take the necessary steps. If the status quo order passed by the Civil Court is breached, the Petitioners obviously have a remedy provided under the Civil Procedure Code which they will be at liberty to adopt. The grievance of the Petitioners appears to be that instead of making Rudra Tripathi and Kishore Shah accused, they have been made witnesses in the case by the police. Section 319 of the Code vests wide powers in a criminal Court. If in the course of a trial it appears to the Court that apart from the accused who are facing a trial before him any other persons are involved in the offence, he can pass orders under Section 319 of the Code and proceed against them. Learned Magistrate can therefore take recourse to Section 319 of the Code if such evidence comes on record. We however make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this submission of the Petitioners. Mr. Borulkar, Learned Public Prosecutor says that pursuant to the oral directions given by this Court, he has contacted the Secretary, Revenue Department and he has been instructed to state that necessary guidelines will be issued to prevent impersonation at the time of registration of 5 documents and those guidelines will be circulated to all the registering authorities in the State. We hope and trust that the Secretary, Revenue Department frames the guidelines as early as possible and circulates them and takes necessary steps to ensure that they are implemented. The Petition is disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)