cwp1168.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1168 OF 2010 Sanjay s/o Babu Pawar, R/o- Baji Umrad, Tq. & Dist-Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Superintendent of Police, Jalna, 2) The Police Station Officer, Maujpuri Police Station, Jalna, 3) The Tahsildar, Jalna, 4) Malabai w/o Deepa Rathod, R/o- Baji Umrad Tanda, Tq. & Dist-Jalna, 5) Deepa s/o Mansingh Rathod, R/o- As above, 6) Ajay s/o Deepa Pawar, R/o-As above. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. Hemant Surve Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. K.G. Patil, A.P.P for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. ... cwp1168.10 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 31ST MARCH, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner prays for directions to provide two male constables and one lady police constable for extending protection to life and property of the Petitioner during harvesting process as per the charges received by them on 27th October, 2010. The Petitioner further prays for directions to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 prohibiting them from entering the landed property of the Petitioner in the light of the Judgment delivered by the Civil Court. 2. In short, the Petitioner's contention is cwp1168.10 3 that in the Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner being R.C.S. No.5 of 2007, injunction was clamped against Respondent Malabai Rathod. It is alleged by the Petitioner that to counter blast the Judgment delivered by the Civil Court, the Respondents also filed two suits against the present Petitioner, one for cancellation of sale deed and another for injunction. Both the suits came to be dismissed. The Petitioner had filed application dated 5th October, 2009 for providing him police protection. The police had accepted the charges for providing police protection, to the tune of Rs.6654/- (Rupees Six Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four only), but no police protection was provided. 3. Consequent to the notice issued by this Court, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed affidavit in reply through Shri. Ramesh Bajirao Jaybhaye, Assistant Police Inspector, Maujpuri Police Station, Dist-Jalna. The deponent contends that cwp1168.10 4 the Petitioner had filed Regular Darkhast No.31 of 2009 before the learned Civil Court, Jalna seeking prayer for providing police protection to him. According to the deponent, by an order dated 2nd November, 2009 the Civil Court directed that, since a decree for perpetual injunction was sought to be executed under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, decree holder i.e. present Petitioner should lead evidence in the matter. The Petitioner had filed Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the order passed by the trial Court, being Writ Petition No.454 of 2010. The said Writ Petition came to be withdrawn by the Petitioner on 29th April, 2010 by seeking liberty to file execution application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The deponent submits that the Petitioner can prosecute civil remedies. Reference is made to Crime No.9 of 2011 registered against the Petitioner under Section 307, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. cwp1168.10 5 4. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 also filed affidavit in reply. The deponent submits that the Petitioner has suppressed material facts from the Court in respect of Civil Suits filed by the Respondents and dismissal of Suits filed by them against the Petitioner. The deponent contends that against the dismissal of suits, R.C.A. No.29 of 2010 and 37 of 2010 were filed and are pending before the District Court, Jalna. It is contended that the Petitioner has filed withdrawal purshis on 22nd June, 2010 for withdrawal of Regular Darkhast No.31 of 2009. 5. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submits that the parties are litigating in the Civil Court. The Petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court. The learned counsel submits that the Petitioner has withdrawn Execution Proceedings pending before the trial Court. The Respondents have placed on record copy of order dated 29th April, 2010 passed by the cwp1168.10 6 learned Single Judge of this Court (CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) in Writ Petition No.453 of 2010, copy of the order passed by the Civil Court dated 22nd June, 2010 and copy of the police report dated 1st December, 2009. The learned counsel submits that police protection need not be granted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner disputes the statement made by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 regarding withdrawal of Execution proceedings pending before the trial Court. Learned counsel submits that Execution Proceeding is still pending and in the facts of the case, police protection is required to be granted. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following Reported Judgments: i) Khashibai Dadu Jagtap vs. cwp1168.10 7 Satyawan Baban Mane, 1997 (5) L.J. 439, ii) Bhikubai w/o Nathu Patil and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2002 (6) L.J. SOFT. 23, iii) M/s. Shakti Bricks vs. Collector, Bhadrak and others, 2009 CRI. L.J. 545. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced, perused the record placed before us and the Judgments cited before us. The Petitioner ought to have disclosed material facts including filing of the earlier Petition before this Court seeking similar reliefs and withdrawal of the same. The Petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.453 of 2010 before this Court, wherein the Petitioner prayed for providing him police aid. The said Writ Petition was withdrawn by the Petitioner on 29th April, 2010. As the parties are cwp1168.10 8 litigating before the Civil Court in respect of their civil rights and considering the reply filed by the Respondents, in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, we are not inclined to issue directions as prayed for by the Petitioner. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/MAR11/cwp1168.10