1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No.774 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners seek to challenge FIR registered by the Police Station at Parner for offence punishable U/s 379 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code against them. The Respondent No.3 filed the FIR alleging that the petitioners committed theft of his Jawar crop worth Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) by removing the same from 15 gunthas land owned by him. He alleged that the incident occurred on 21.1.2009. The learned advocate would point out that the FIR was lodged on 11.6.2009 after about six (6) months and, therefore, the cognizance can not be taken because the complaint itself is based on concocted allegations. He would submit that the Civil dispute is going on regarding the disputed 15 gunthas land and that the complainant is not the owner thereof. It prima facie transpires from the recitals of the FIR that there was dispute regarding 20 gunthas land. The Respondent No.3 alleged that after inquiry the possession of that land was given to him on 8.5.2009 by the competent Revenue Authority. He alleged that an appeal preferred by the petitioner No.1 against such order was rejected by the Deputy Collector on 20.2.2009. Thus, he was claiming to be lawful possessor of the land in question. Whether the strip of the land is owned by the complainant or that by the appellant is a disputed question of fact. So also, the averment that the FIR is concocted is in the shape of the defence of the petitioner. Mere delay in lodging of the FIR by itself will not be a sufficient ground to quash the report. The delay can be explained during the trial or if the explanation is not furnished or is found unacceptable then it may be considered as an adverse circumstance against the complainant/prosecution. At present, however, there appears no prima facie case. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.02.09.2009. asp/office/Crwp774.09