1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No.360/2008 (Shiv Harikishan Agrawal .vs. State of Mah. And two others ) with Criminal Writ Petition No. 403/2008 (Gopal Shiva Ikhankar and one .vs. State of Mah. And two ors.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for Petitioner (in WP No.360/2008) Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners (In WP No.403/2008) Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the Respondents/State .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE &, B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATED : JULY 29, 2008 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. According to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.360/2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Agrawal” for short) the petitioners in Writ Petition No.403/2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Ikhankars” for short) entered into an agreement of sale of their land on 2.7.2003 and agreed to deliver possession of the land on the same day; whereas according to Ikhankars they had obtained hand loan from Agrawal and that for recovery of the same Agrawal intends to grab their valuable 2 land. It seems that on 11.4.2008 Agrawal instituted Special Civil Suit No. 466 of 2008 against Ikhankars for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 2.7.2003. The suit summons were issued and Ikhankars were served with the suit summons on 16.4.2008. It is important to note that soon after the receipt of the suit summons, Ikhankars filed report at Wadi Police Station on 25.4.2008. Perhaps after learning about the report, Agrawal also filed report against Ikhankars at Wadi Police Station on 7.5.2008. 3. It may be noted that the alleged agreement of sale dated 2.7.2003 is on the general stamp of Rs.100/- only. In view of these circumstances, we feel that the matter is purely of civil nature. In case any of the parties desire that criminal action should be taken against another party, they are free to approach the concerned Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai 3