1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No.44 of 2009 (The State of Maharashtra v. Ajay Raibhan Gajbhiye) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri D.B. Patel, APP for Applicant. Shri P.Z. Dhoke, Advocate for Non-Applicant. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 1st April, 2009 By this revision, the State seeks to assail the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, rejecting the application Exhibit 20 by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor before the said Court for adding charge of offence punishable under Section 341 of the Penal Code. I have heard the learned APP for the applicant/State as well as the learned counsel for the original accused. I have also gone through the FIR as also the police papers, which have been made available by the learned APP. The grievance of the complainant was that he was a tenant in respect of the premises and on 12-2-2004 he had locked the premises and gone home. On 13-2-2004, one Dr. Manish informed him on telephone that the articles in his tenanted premises had been thrown out and somebody else had locked the premises from the outside. He, therefore, complained that the accused, one Ajay Gajbhiye, had, with the 2 help of his accomplices, thrown out his belongings and caused loss of Rs.5,000/- and also locked the premises. There is no complaint that he had been restrained from entering the premises. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate was wrong in rejecting the application Exhibit 20 for adding the charge. The application is dismissed. Judge. Pdl.