1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No. 288/2011 Janikrao Dinbaji Hadke ..vs.. Vasant Ajabrao Deshmukh and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Ms. M. S. Hiwse, Advocate h/f Mr. D. L. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for applicant. Mr. R. R. Prajapati, Advocate for non applicants. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 9, 2011. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. The appellant is original complainant in Criminal Case No. 16/2007 decided on 23.02.2011 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi, Dist. Wardha whereby respondent nos. 1 to 3/original accused nos. 1 to 3 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 352, 294, 448, 506 (2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant has a house/cattle-shade in the land situated at Kamthi, Tq. Dist. Wardha. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 who were Sarpancha, Secretary and Peon respectively of village Panchayat Kamthi at the relevant time, had entered the land of the complainant and then in the cattle-shade to carry out measurement. When the complainant objected to this, there was an altercation between them. It was alleged that the respondent 2 hurled filthy abuses and assaulted the complainant. With these allegations, the appellant approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi by filing private complaint. 4. Three witnesses were examined. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Magistrate did not believe the case of the complainant and hence acquitted the respondents of all the charges levelled against them. Hence, this appeal. 5. It was transpired in the evidence that the respondents were claiming that the cattle-shade was within the limit of village Panchayat and for that they sought to levy tax on the said structure. This was disputed by the complainant and for that civil suit was also filed against the village Panchayat. It is, thus, obvious that the respondents sought to levy tax on the cattle-shade and for that issued notices. 6. Under these circumstances, if the testimony of the complainant is read, there is a possibility that they had entered over the land of the complainant and were carrying out the measurements. Of course, this was without permission of the complainant. The learned Magistrate has assigned cogent reasons while disbelieving case of hurling filthy abuses and giving threats. 7. In that light of the matter, leave to the extent of offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code can be granted. 3 Hence, leave granted only to the extent of offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC. 8. Appeal : Admit, so far as it relates to the order of acquittal under Section 448 of the I.P.C. 9. Mr. R. R. Prajapati, Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. Hence, action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is dispensed with. Respondents to furnish PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each before the J.M.F.C. Arvi. JUDGE kahale