JUDGMENT - Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original complainant Subhash Ramchandra Durge, being aggrieved by the order dated 31st March, 1994, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji, acquitting accused Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) for offence punishable under section 407 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows : Complaint dated 30th May, 1986, came to be filed by the complainant Subhash Ramchandra Durge, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji, which came to be numbered as Criminal Case No. 226 of 1986, against three accused. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Deepak Annasaheb Gat and Ramesh Annasaheb Gat, are real brothers and accused No. 3 Anwar Aaijuddin Herwade @ Shaikh was the driver. Subsequently the name of the driver came to be deleted. 3. The complainant has stated in the above mentioned complaint that the petitioner/complainant was a partner in a firm by name Laxmi Borewell Company, which was engaged in providing services of boring well. In the course of business, the petitioner/complainant took one compressor C.P. 260, on rent of Rs. 300/- per month, from one Vipula Constructions for well boring. Respondent Nos. 1 an 2 are the owners of the Truck No. MHL-7313, which was given on hire on 20th May, 1986. Since the contract of Compressor was over, it was entrusted to the driver of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for delivery thereof at the office of Vipula Constructions. The said compressor, however, was not delivered to the said Vipula Constructions and they called upon the petitioner/Subhash Ramchandra Durge to return the said compressor. On enquiry, the petitioner learnt that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were responsible for this lapse. The petitioner then complained to the Hatkanangale Police Station as well as Vijapur Police Chowky. Thereafter, complaint came to be filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji, as police did not take any action. On the same day, the petitioner also applied for search warrant for seizure of the said Compressor. 4. On 30th May, 1986, the learned Magistrate examined the petitioner and passed order issuing process against the respondents under section 407 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as issued a search warrant. On the same day, the petitioner also applied for search warrant for seizure of the said Compressor. 4. On 30th May, 1986, the learned Magistrate examined the petitioner and passed order issuing process against the respondents under section 407 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as issued a search warrant. Pursuant to the said search warrant, Hatkanangale Police Station recovered on 1st June, 1986, the Compressor from the truck of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, upon the application being made by the petitioner, the custody of the said Compressor was given to the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner led evidence before charge, by examination four witnesses. On 28th January, 1994, the learned Magistrate framed charges against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under section 407 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequent to the framing of charge, no other witnesses were examined by the complainant. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had committed offence under section 407 of the Indian Penal Code and by his impugned judgment and order dated 31st March, 1994, acquitted both the accused. In addition to this, the learned Magistrate also issued show cause notice to the complainant Subhash Ramchandra Durge under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as to why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused as he was convinced that the complainant had filed a false complaint against the respondents. 6. It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that the finding of the Magistrate in coming to conclusion that the complainant had filed a false complaint and his order of acquitting the accused and further order of issuing show cause notice to the complainant under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was erroneous and he has, therefore, prayed that the said order be set aside. 7. I have heard Mr. Ganesh Gole, appearing for the petitioner/original complainant and Mr. Paranjape for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. I have also gone through the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard Mr. Ganesh Gole, appearing for the petitioner/original complainant and Mr. Paranjape for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. I have also gone through the impugned judgment. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate has discussed, at length, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and has rightly come to the conclusion that the case of the complainant was false. He has passed strictures on the conduct of the complainant and has observed by giving instances that the complainant has tried to fill up the lacuna and tried to improve his case. He has observed that the conduct of the petitioner was mischievous. The complainant first lodged complaint with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur, on 25th May, 1986, and then, on 27th May, 1986, he sent telegram to the accused for returning the Compressor. The learned Magistrate also referred to the Civil Suit, which came to be filed by the complainant, which was ultimately dismissed. 8. Thus, having heard all the Advocates and having gone through the impugned judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, I find no reason to interfere with the findings given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji in writ jurisdiction. In fact, this was not proper forum to the petitioner to approach. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of acquittal, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji, he could have filed Revision Application against the said order, but instead of doing that, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Hence, the following order : Criminal Writ Petition No. 1037 of 1994 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim stay dated 7th September, 1994 is hereby vacated. Writ petition dismissed. -----