1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.3385 of 2005 In Cri.Appeal St.No. of 2005. _______________________________________________________________ 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. Originally the private complaint was instituted by a watchman of the agricultural land. He claimed that he was appointed by the present appellant to look after the agricultural land bearing S.No.22. There was a Civil dispute as regards alienation of the land to the extent of one (1) acre 15 gunthas. The complaint filed by the said watchman indicated that the Respondent No. 1 entered the agricultural land on 7.12.1997 at about 5 a.m. along with 10/12 other accused persons. They committed criminal trespass in the land and started uprooting the poles and removing of the wire fencing. A Police complaint was lodged thereafter. Allegedly, the Respondents committed the act of criminal trespass, got cut the wire fencing and removed the same and thereby caused loss of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the appellant. It appears that initially the complaint was referred for report U/s 202 of the Cr.P.C. The Police report indicated that there were circumstances to show existence of grain of truth in the complaint. It further appears that poles were found to have been uprooted and same were lying at the spot. The appellant examined witnesses in support of the complaint case. Some of the observations of the learned Magistrate appeared to be factually incorrect. The learned Magistrate observed that time of the incident is not mentioned in the complaint. This is incorrect statement in the judgment. It is true that there was a Civil dispute between the parties as regards alienation of the land. It is well settled, however, that in a given circumstances, Civil as well as Criminal dispute may go on simultaneously and, therefore, mere existence of Civil dispute by itself would not give rise to inference that no Criminal act could be done by the Respondents. The matter requires afresh consideration by appreciation of the evidence. Consequently, leave to appeal is granted. 3. Admit. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.02.09.2009. asp/office/Crapp3385.05