VYANKAT VITHOBA PALAMPALLE Vs. MOHAN GUNDAPPA BUKALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned order dated 11-3-1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, recalling the order of issuing of process issued earlier.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that petitioner is the son of respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 8 is his sister. Agricultural lands belonging to the family are recorded in the revenue record in the name of respondent No. 7, he is shown to be cultivating the lands. There is a dispute between the petitioner and his father regarding ownership of this field. According to the petitioner his father sold his share for Rs. 10,000/- and put him in possession of the entire agricultural land. The factum of possession is borne out by Civil Suit No. 278/1995 for partition and separate possession of his share of the land and Maintenance Petition No. 230/1995 filed by respondent No. 7. According to petitioner, several complaints were lodged against him, with Police Station. Taking advantage of these complaints, the respondent No. 9 who is a Police Constable, took him to osmanabad and after bringing him back instituted proceedings under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During this period i. e. during 30-1-1996 to 3-2-1996, respondents 1 to 11 forcibly harvested crop worth Rs. 21,000. His wife ujwala made an effort to resist, but the respondent assaulted her and injury was caused to her on forehead, while taking away the crop. His labourers Manik and laxman have witnessed this incident. As cognizance is not taken by the local police, the petitioner filed a private complaint being RCC No. 101/1996 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga.

(3.) On verification, complainant was recorded on 18-4-1996 and on the same day an order under section 156 (3) , Criminal Procedure Code was passed, giving direction to the police for conducting investigation and submitting report. Later on, the successor of learned Magistrate gave direction to the complainant for leading evidence by order dated 3-8-1996. In pursuance of this order, one witness namely, Manik Sakharam Pawar came to be examined. On consideration of the material, learned Magistrate issued process against respondents 1 to 11 by his order dated 20-12-1996.