JUDGMENT:- The petition is filed to challenge the order made by J.M.F.C. Ambad in M.A. No.168 of 2004. The J.M.F.C. has accepted the report filed by the Police and has dismissed the private complaint filed by the Petitioner against Respondent Nos.2 to 14. 2. Both the sides are heard. 3. It is the case of the complainant that one Devidas Janardhan Nivare, Advocate practicing at Paithan is the owner of a portion of Gat No. 49 situated at Kaosan. It is the case of the complainant that he was cultivating the land for this Advocate and he had taken Jawar crop at the relevant time in the land. After harvesting the crop, it was kept in front of the house of the complainant. 4. It is the case of the complainant that on the night between 11th February, 2004 and 12th February, 2004, all the accused came in vehicle and the police vehicle to his house and by using force, they took away the aforesaid crop from his custody. Allegations are made that they also took away cash of Rs.20,000/- and gold ornaments of ten Tola from his house. Allegations are made that the police officers named in the complaint helped the main accused to destroy the evidence and property was disposed of. It is contended that false report was given against Devidas Nivare and his relatives that they had committed theft of aforesaid crop from the disputed portion. The complaint came to be filed on 4th March, 2004. The J.M.F.C. made order of investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The SDO, Ambad made investigation of the case and gave report that false complaint was filed by the present Petitioner. After receipt of this report, notice was issued to the Petitioner. Say was taken and then the Magistrate accepted the report and closed the matter. 5. It was submitted for the Petitioner that opportunity was not given to the Petitioner to lead more evidence to substantiate the allegations for the purpose of issuing process. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that false allegations were made and the SDO had made proper investigation and the Court had considered relevant circumstance like the dispute, which was filed in the Civil Court in the past and the compromise, which had taken place in the past. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that false allegations were made and the SDO had made proper investigation and the Court had considered relevant circumstance like the dispute, which was filed in the Civil Court in the past and the compromise, which had taken place in the past. 6. This Court has carefully gone through the report prepared by the SDO. The report shows that necessary inquiry was made with the persons, who were holding different shares in the aforesaid land. The report shows that cultivation of Jawar crop was at the instance of the accused and in the portion, which was purchased by the accused. Inquiry was made with the Tahsil office where the dispute was taken in the past and it was confirmed that the crop was taken by Tarabai Saruk on behalf of Uttam Nivare and Saraswatibai Nivare. The report shows that some incident had taken place, which was taken to police and before police compromise had taken place. The report shows that the present Petitioner had handed over the crop to Tarabai Saruk, who had cultivated the land on behalf of Uttam Nivare and Saraswatibai Nivare. Inquiry was made with Matador driver as the Matador was used for shifting the crop. In the past, suit was filed by Devidas Nivare for the relief of injunction against Uttam and Saraswatibai Nivare, but the suit was dismissed on 28th October, 2002. In view of this inquiry, report came to be given that false complaint was filed by Prabhakar Kharat. 7. Copies of some affidavits are filed to show that some persons came before the Court to say that no inquiry was made with them though in the report, it is mentioned that the Police had made inquiry with them. All these circumstances are considered by the J.M.F.C. There was no reason for the Police to take side of the accused Tarabai Saruk, who had cultivated the said land. Though opportunity was not given to examine more witnesses, nothing can be achieved by giving such permission. It can be said that there was some civil dispute, but there was also the background of settlement between the sharers of the aforesaid Gat number and the dismissal of the suit, which was filed in respect of present portion in the year 2002. It can be said that there was some civil dispute, but there was also the background of settlement between the sharers of the aforesaid Gat number and the dismissal of the suit, which was filed in respect of present portion in the year 2002. The complaint was given on 4th March, 2004 when the incident allegedly took place on the night of 11th February, 2004 and 12th February, 2004. This circumstance cannot be ignored. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on two reported cases like, (1995 CRI.L.J. 3489] Allahabad High Court (Kullu and another Vs. Shahid Ali and another) and (1972 (4) CPMH2] Bombay High Court (Yashodabai Keshav Thakur Desai Vs. Bhaskar Moreshwar Kamat). Some observations regarding the right of the complainant to have say when report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is given are made in the first case. The facts of this case were totally different than the facts of the present case. This Court holds that the Magistrate has rightly used the discretion and decided to close the matter. The facts of second case were also different and it was a matter of recording evidence before framing charges under Section 252(1) of the Old Criminal Procedure Code. 9. This Court holds that interference is not possible in the order made by the J.M.F.C. and so the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Petition dismissed.