ISAQ MAHBOOB Vs. VITHALRAO NAGORAO KELGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the accused seek to quash the order dated 20th November 1974, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur, framed charges against them for the offences under Sections 447, 323/34 and 427/34, I. P. C. in Criminal Case No. 898 of 1973 at the instance of the respondent-complainant.

(2.) THE complainant alleges that he is in possession of Survey No, 1a situated at Latur on the basis of an agreement for sale dated 7th October 1972 executed in his favour by accused No. 3. On 22nd July 1973 at about 1 p. m. , he had been to the said land for irrigation purposes along with others. Some time thereafer, 15 accused came at the well in the land. According to the complainant, accused No. 3 abused him and stated that he would not allow the complainant to install an engine on the well. There was standing crop of maize in the field adjacent to the well on the eastern side. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 pushed him aside and they along with accused Nos. 4 to 9 started uprooting the standing crop of maize. At that time, the complainant's servant Laxman prevented them from doing so. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 pushed Laxman and accused Nos. 4 to 9 beat him with slaps, kicks and fist blows. Accused Nos. 3 and 10 to 15 were standing on the well. The complainant alleged that they threatened him to murder if he did not vacate from the said land. According to the complainant, the accused have caused damage to the crop in his field worth Rs. 200/ -. The complainant further alleged that 4 to 5 persons passing by the road including Sudani Mali, Shrinivas Deshpande, Raosaheb of Khulgapur and Harzu came there and intervened. The complainant also alleged that he filed a civil suit for injunction against accused No. 1 as he had obstructed his agricultural operations in April 1973 and as a result temporary injunction was granted in his favour against accused No. 1. The complainant further alleged that accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 have leased the same land for a period of five years on 4th April 1973 to accused No. 9 and they in turn have filed a suit for injunction against him. However, their application for temporary injunction was rejected on 16th July 1973.

(3.) IN support of his case, the complainant examined himself and his two witnesses. They were cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused. On the basis of the evidence before him, the learned Magistrate framed charges under Sections 447, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate was not impressed by the submission on behalf of the accused that the complainant had failed to make out a prima facie case against the accused. The other submissions that a civil litigation is pending between the parties, accused No. 12 is in possession, the complainant was not put in possession, the complainant being an Advocate for accused No. 3 had obtained the signatures of accused No. 3 on blank papers and then used the same for the purpose of creating the alleged agreement for sale, and that there were material contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses did not find favour with the learned Magistrate and he proceeded to frame the charges against the accused as indicated above.