Vijay S/O Narayanrao Admane vs Shri Prem S/O Gajanan Borikar And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 260 Bom

                                           1                                           revn248.13




                                                                                    
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                            
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO .248 OF 2013




                                                           
     Vijay s/o Narayanrao Admane,
     Aged about 61 years, 
     Occupation - Retired, 




                                              
     R/o House No.647, Circle No.14/20,
     Golibar Chowk, Cradak Road, Itwari,
                             
     Nagpur.                                                         ....       APPLICANT

                        VERSUS
                            
     1) Shri Prem s/o Gajanan Borikar,
         Aged 45 years, Occupation - Business,
      

     2) Shri Vinod s/o Gajanan Borikar,
         Aged 50 years, Occupation - Service, 
   



         Both R/o House No.662 & 662-b,
         Prabhag No.33, Golibar Square, City 
         Survey No.116 & 117, Cradak Road,





         Near Parmatma Ek Sewak Bank, 
         Circle No.14/20, Golibar Chowk, 
         Cradak Road, Itwari, Nagpur.                                .... NON-APPLICANTS


     ______________________________________________________________





       Shri P.W. Mirza, Advocate h/f. Shri Masood Shareef, Advocate for the
                                    applicant.
      ______________________________________________________________

                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 2 nd MARCH, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri P.W. Mirza, Advocate holding for Shri Masood

2 revn248.13

Shareef, Advocate for the applicant.

2. The applicant filed complaint against the non-applicants

praying that the non-applicants be convicted for the offences under

Sections 294, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and they be punished. The applicant contended that the non-

applicants started construction of southern side wall of their house

near the applicant's property without leaving space as required by bye-

laws, that the applicant objected, however, the non-applicants

continued with the construction. According to the applicant, he got

the measurement done in which it was found that the non-applicants

had made an encroachment. The applicant had made a complaint to

the Nagpur Municipal Corporation because of which the non-

applicants started abusing the applicant and threatened him. With the

above allegations, the applicant filed the complaint before the learned

Magistrate.

The learned Magistrate conducted the trial and by the

judgment dated 20-09-2010 concluded that the applicant/complainant

had failed to establish the charges levelled against the non-applicants

and acquitted the non-applicants.

The applicant had challenged the judgment passed by the

3 revn248.13

learned Magistrate in appeal before the Sessions Court, which is

dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. Shri P.W. Mirza, learned Advocate for the applicant tried

to point out that the conclusions of the subordinate Courts are not in

consonance with the evidence on the record. I find that the learned

Magistrate has exhaustively dealt with the evidence on the record and

has rightly held that the applicant/complainant has failed to establish

the accusations made by him against the non-applicants. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge has independently dealt with the evidence

on the record and has examined the legal position and has rightly

concluded that the evidence on the record is not sufficient to hold the

non-applicants guilty of the charges levelled against them.

4. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned

judgments. The criminal revision application is dismissed. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

pma