1 Criminal Writ Petition No.52 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.52 OF 2008 Dr.Madhukar Kishanrao Choudhary (Khaliker) Age-73, Occu-Doctor-cum-Agriculturist, Advocate, Radha Krishna Bhuvan, Station Road, Parbhani, At Post : Parbhani PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, High Court Bench at Aurangabad, 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Parbhani, 2. Rajeshwar Kishanrao Choudhary, Age-82 years, Occu-Retd.Govt.Servant cum-Agriculturist, Radhakrishna Complex, R/o.Station Road, Parbhani, At Post : Parbhani 3. Purushottam S/o.Rajeshwar Choudhary, Age-43 years, Occu-Civil Judge, J.M.F.C. At Post Patur, R/o.Tal.Patur, Dist.Akola. 4. Vinod S/o.Rajeshwarrao Choudhary, Age-49 years, Occu-Dist.Labour Officer, Parbhani, R/o.”Renuka” Behind New Power House, Jintur Road, Parbhani, At Post Parbhani, 5. Kishor S/o.Rajeshwarrao Choudhary, Age-45 years, Occu-Sr.Civil Judge at Barshi Court, At Post Barshi, Dist. Solapur. 6. Mrs.Pushpa W/o.Vinod Choudhary, Age-43 years, Occu-Housewife, R/o.”Renuka” Behind New Power House, Jintur Road, Parbhani, A/P.Parbhani, 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.52 of 2008 7. Agent Bhumi Vikas Sahakari Krishi Bank Ltd., Branch Parbhani, In front of Stadium Complex, Parbhani, At Post : Parbhani RESPONDENTS Mr.M.P.Gude, learned counsel for the applicant.(Appointed) Mr.S.D.Kaldate, learned A.P.P. for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 26/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 15/11/20097 passed in Criminal Revision Appl.No.206/2000, which came to be dismissed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2 Parbhani and thereby confirmed the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Parbhani in RCC No.284/1999, by which the learned Lower Court pleased to accept the ‘C’ summary report filed by the police. 3. With the assistance of learned counsel for petitioner and of learned A.P.P., I have perused the record. It appears that the petitioner herein has filed complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani for an offence punishable u/s. 406, 417, 420, 468, 209 and 109 of the IPC against his brothers and sisters, which 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.52 of 2008 was numbered as RCC No.284/1999. It appears that there is dispute between the parties on account of partition of ancestral property amongst the petitioner herein and his brothers and sisters. After the partition was effected, certain entries were taken in the Record of Rights with which the petitioner was not satisfied. Provisions u/s. 247 and 249 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are very clear that the aggrieved party, about the entries in the land record, may prefer an appeal u/s. 247 or revision u/s. 249 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Instead of seeking that remedy by the petitioner, who himself claimed by profession to be Doctor cum Advocate cum Agriculturist cum Social Worker, has approached the Criminal Court for cancellation of those entries as according to him, those entries were entered in the revenue record by the concerned authorities in connivance with his brothers and sisters. It further appears that after the complaint was lodged, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Parbhani has directed the concerned Police Station to investigate the matter u/s. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, as the concerned Police Station does not find any substance in the complaint, submitted the report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by way of ‘C’ summary. Before accepting the ‘C’ summary report, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also issued notice to the present petitioner. After hearing both sides, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate pleased to accept the ‘C’ summary report and pass the order of dismissal of the complaint. It appears that, being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.52 of 2008 Magistrate, petitioner has approached the Revisional Court by filing Cri.Rev.No.206/2005 as well as Cri.Rev.No.25/2005, which revisions also came to be dismissed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani by his judgment and order dated 15/11/2007, which are impugned in these writ petitions. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel appointed to represent the present petitioner and learned A.P.P. I have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, so also learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani. It is observed by both the Courts below while rejecting the prayers of the petitioner that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and it is pending before the revenue authorities. Instead of preferring an appeal before the revenue authorities, this false complaint is lodged against the persons. On these grounds, both the courts below have rejected the request of the petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that there is no perversity or illegality in the order impugned. In substance, writ petition, being sans merits, stands dismissed. Rule discharged. 4. Fees payable to the learned counsel for petitioner is quantified in the sum of Rs.1,500/-. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEPT.2011/cri.w.p.52-08