RAMDAS AMBADAS UKRANDE Vs. SHIVAJI BABURALO BHANDAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) To state in brief, the petitioner is the original complainant in R.C.C.No.414/1995. According to him, he is owner of tractor No.MHA-7934 with trolly No.MTB 6104. He had purchased the said tractor and trolly in the year 1980. According to him, he had given the said tractor and trolly to the Respondents on hire at the rate of Rs.10,000/- p.m. about 8 months before filing the complaint on 4.12.1995. As per the contract the Respondents were to pay amount of Rs.80,000/- towards hire of the said tractor and trolly but during the said period they had paid Rs.25,000/- only. As the amount of Rs.55,000/- had remained unpaid, the petitioner took his tractor, trolly and other agricultural implements back and kept the same in his land S.No.362 at Terkheda. However, on 2.12.1995, Respondents Nos.l to 4 came to his field and forcibly took away tractor and trolly inspite of objection raised by sons of the petitioner. Therefore, on the same day, petitioner went to Yermala Police outpost to lodge a report but as nobody was present there, he went to Kallam Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. According to him, no cognizance of the F.I.R. was taken nor any action was taken by the Police. Therefore, on 4.12.1995, he lodged a complaint against Respondents Nos.l to 4 for the offence punishable U/ss. 379, 392 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. in the Court of J.M.F.C. Kallam. On 5.12.1995, the J.M.F.C. issued summons to the accused No.l to produce the said tractor and trolly before the Court. On 18.12.1995, the Respondents Nos.l and 2 appeared before J.M.F.C. Kallam, contending that the report dated 2.12.1995 was already submitted by the petitioner at Police Station about the same subject matter and therefore, the proceedings of the complaint should be stayed, in view of provisions of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. On 6.1.1996, the learned Magistrate passed an order staying the proceedings and he also called report from the Police Officer conducting the investigation. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed this writ petition and sought to quash the order dated 6.l.1996 passed by J.M.F.C. Kallam. He also sought a direction to P.S.O. Kallam Police Station to seize the stolen property and produce before the trial Court.

(3.) During pendency of this petition, P.S.O. was directed to submit his affidavit which he did on 1.2.1996. In that report, he submitted that the report lodged by the petitioner on 2.12.1995 does not appear to be true as neither the petitioner nor any other person attended out-post Yermala or Kallam Police Station for recording of statement in support of the report. He further contended that in view of the order passed by the J.M.F.C. staying further proceedings in the investigation, no further investigation is carried out by the Police. He averred in the affidavit that a report was already submitted before J.M.F.C. Kallam on 17.1.1996 to the above fact. Alongwith the affidavit of A.S.I. Kerba, the copy of report dated 17.1.96 was also submitted. After submission of the said report on 13.2.1996, this Court passed an order and directed the respondents to take the tractor, trolly and other agricultural implements forthwith to Police Station Kallam and the P.S.O. was directed to attach the said property under panchanama and to submit a report accordingly before this Court. Admittedly, as per the said order the tractor and the trolly were produced at the Police Station and same were attached. Since then the said tractor and trolly are lying at the Police Station.