Judgment : 1. This Application is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."). Notice to Respondent Nos.10 and 11. The learned A.P.P. waives notice for Respondent Nos.10 and 11. Finally heard at admission stage. 2. Present Application has been filed in view of orders passed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. dated 16th December, 2013 vide which Judicial Magistrate(First Class) Court No.7, Ahmednagar has dismissed the complaint filed by the Applicant. 3. Learned counsel for Applicant submits that between the complainant-wife and Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 husband and in-laws, there were various proceedings pending and on 31st March, 2009 after attending the Court proceedings in Criminal Misc. Application No.757 of 2007 at Ahmednagar, the Applicant-wife was proceeding from near Hoshing Hospital towards S.T. Stand, when the incident took place. Her husband-Accused No.1 called out to her to wait and Accused Nos.2 to 9 came there and the accused persons abused her on caste and threatened and misbehaved with her. Applicant reported matter to Police on 2nd April, 2009 in writing. She pursued the matter with Police. On 3rd May, 2009 when she met Accused No. 10 - P.S.I. Koli, he kept talking to Accused No.1, his Advocate and a journalist Zoting. When she interfered, Accused No.10 also abused her on caste. Thus she filed Private Complaint. 4. Learned counsel submits that verification of the Applicant wife-complainant was recorded by the Magistrate and under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., after recording verification, the Magistrate directed investigation by the police on 7th July, 2009. The police submitted report and thereafter on 17th September, 2009, the Magistrate directed the complainant to lead further evidence. According to the learned counsel, the Applicant-complainant was unable to lead further evidence and after arguments, the Magistrate has passed the impugned order. 5. The police submitted report and thereafter on 17th September, 2009, the Magistrate directed the complainant to lead further evidence. According to the learned counsel, the Applicant-complainant was unable to lead further evidence and after arguments, the Magistrate has passed the impugned order. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for Applicant is that the Applicant was unable to bring forward evidence of any person to show that the incident took place in public view, (although she alleged that people had gathered) and even if it was to be said that provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 under which the complaint was filed, do not get attracted, still according to the learned counsel the complaint and verification is sufficient to show that Sections 341, 295A, 509 of the Indian Penal Code were attracted and the Magistrate should have issued process under those Sections. 6. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that after investigation by the police, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground to proceed further and the impugned order cannot be faulted with. 7. Admittedly, there were earlier cases pending between the parties. The Applicant-complainant then filed the present complaint claiming that an incident took place near Hosing Hospital. Perusal of the complaint shows that she attributed role to the husband and in-laws, claiming that they addressed her certain sentences on caste and threatened her. Although the complaint claimed that many people had gathered on the spot, the complaint did not list any person from the public to support her contentions that incident took place in public view. After recording verification, apparently the Magistrate felt that it was not enough and directed investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. 8. The police report received by the Magistrate showed that the police inquired regarding the alleged incident which took place regarding P.S.I. on 3rd May, 2009 and found that there was a journalist, Ashok Shivdas Zoting present at the police station but his statement shows that the complainant was treated well. The police report concluded that complainant had made false statement. Regarding the incident alleged of 31st March, 2009 against Respondent Nos.1 to 9 also, the police report does not show that any material was found. 9. The police report concluded that complainant had made false statement. Regarding the incident alleged of 31st March, 2009 against Respondent Nos.1 to 9 also, the police report does not show that any material was found. 9. The Applicant was given opportunity by the Magistrate right from 17th September, 2009 till 16th December, 2013 to bring evidence but she did not tender any witness in support of her contentions. On 16th December, 2013 the Magistrate heard the arguments and passed the impugned order on 16th December, 2013. 10. The impugned order shows that Magistrate observed that except verification of complainant there is no other evidence on record against the accused persons so as to issue process under the provisions of Cr.P.C. It was observed that the Applicant-complainant was not able to make out case against the accused Nos.1 to 10 for the offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. It was also observed that complainant is having enmity with the non-applicants and therefore possibility to lodge false case against accused cannot be ruled out. The Magistrate, thus, came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding and dismissed the complaint. 11. I have gone through the material placed on record. The Application being under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it would not be appropriate to substitute my discretion for the discretion exercised by the Magistrate. It is the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate after going through the material placed on record, which is material. Unless it can be said that Magistrate has committed manifest error or failed to exercise jurisdiction or that the order is not legal, correct or proper, I need not invoke inherent jurisdiction. Going through the material, I find the Magistrate to be justified in holding that there was no sufficient ground to proceed further and complaint deserved to be dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 12. The argument that the Sections under the Indian Penal Code as stated were attracted, needs to be discarded. Looking to the complaint as has been filed with the background of the parties, there is patent absurdity in the claims made in the complaint and the verification. Large number of in-laws are roped in. P.S.I. concerned is also made accused for an alleged incident of another date. Magistrate after examining Complaint and Verification postponed issue of process and directed further investigation. Large number of in-laws are roped in. P.S.I. concerned is also made accused for an alleged incident of another date. Magistrate after examining Complaint and Verification postponed issue of process and directed further investigation. When still no more actionable material became available, later, on same Complaint and same Verification, it would have been improper to issue process. When no further material became available, Magistrate rightly found that sufficient ground to proceed further is not there and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order invoking inherent powers. 13. For the reasons stated above, Criminal Application is rejected. Z.A. HAQ, J. Nicolau Fernandes & Others Versus Sounsthan Partagal Jeevotham Math & Another First Appeal No. 109 of 2008 Decided on: 27-03-2014 Advocates Appeared : For the Appellants: R.G. Ramani, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Sudesh Usgaonkar, Matondkar, Advocates. JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I, (Fast Track Court-I), South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit no. 2/2005 on 26.12.2007,by which the suit filed by the Appellants. 2. The case of the Appellants is that they are the owners of the property known as "Ashthagalle" which is surveyed under nos. 22/1(part), 22/3(part), 23/1, 23/3, 23/4, 24/1, 25/1, 26/1 and 27/1. According to the Plaintiffs, the cause of action in filing the suit has arisen when they noticed illegal felling of trees in the suit property by defendant no. 1. On making inquiries, the Plaintiffs came to know that the defendant no. 1 had obtained the licence for cutting trees from survey no. 22/1 of Village Poinguinim. According to the Plaintiffs, they made a request and on it the properties of the Plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 were verified as per the boundaries mentioned in the documents by Engineer Vikas Dessai in the presence of the RFO, Canacona. On verification, it was revealed that a portion of the property of the Plaintiffs admeasuring 63300 square metres, was wrongly surveyed under survey nos. 22/1 and 22/3 and wrongly shown as belonging to defendant nos. 1 and 2. 1 were verified as per the boundaries mentioned in the documents by Engineer Vikas Dessai in the presence of the RFO, Canacona. On verification, it was revealed that a portion of the property of the Plaintiffs admeasuring 63300 square metres, was wrongly surveyed under survey nos. 22/1 and 22/3 and wrongly shown as belonging to defendant nos. 1 and 2. The Plaintiffs have prayed for a Decree (a) for declaration that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit property; (b) for directions to the survey authorities to delete the names of the defendants from the Survey Records of the property and to include the names of the Plaintiffs as owners/occupants of the suit property; (c) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, agents, servants, etc., from interfering in any manner in respect of the suit property; and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The Defendants filed their written statements and opposed the claim of the Plaintiffs. The learned Trial Judge proceeded with the matter, framed the issues and recorded the evidence and by the impugned Judgment and Decree, concluded that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the land admeasuring 63,300 square metres is wrongly included in the survey no. 22/1 and the suit is dismissed. 4. Heard Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1. With the assistance of the learned Advocates, I have examined the evidence of the witnesses for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and the documents on the record. The following points arise for my consideration: (1) Whether the Appellants/Plaintiffs have substantiated their claim that an area admeasuring 63300 square metres is wrongly surveyed in the survey no. 22/1(part), which is in possession of the defendant no. 1? (2) Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Judge is sustainable in law? 5. It is undisputed that the Plaintiffs have not filed any document on record to show the extent of the properties owned by them including the measurement of the properties of survey nos. 22/1(part), 22/3(part), 23/1, 23/3, 23/4, 24/1, 25/1, 26/1 and 27/1. The claim of the Plaintiffs appears to be based mainly on the evidence of Shri Vikas Desai who, according to the Plaintiffs, is an expert Engineer and who, according to the Plaintiffs, has verified the factual position and drawn the map. 22/1(part), 22/3(part), 23/1, 23/3, 23/4, 24/1, 25/1, 26/1 and 27/1. The claim of the Plaintiffs appears to be based mainly on the evidence of Shri Vikas Desai who, according to the Plaintiffs, is an expert Engineer and who, according to the Plaintiffs, has verified the factual position and drawn the map. The learned Trial Judge has extensively considered the evidence of Shri Vikas Desai and has found that there has been substantial variations and contradictions in the evidence of Shri Vikas Desai. The Plaintiffs have not based their claim on any other documentary evidence or any other material. Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Advocate, has not been able to point out any document on record to show that the properties of the Plaintiffs and the properties of the Defendant nos. 1 and 2 were got admeasured and the area admeasuring 63300 square metres out of the property of the Plaintiffs is in the possession of the defendant nos. 1 and 2. 6. The report prepared by Shri Vikas Desai, (Exhibit C-53), is on record and the relevant portion of it is as follows: “On the extreme South-West there is base of old 'Goting' tree and a water drain which is situated at the base of the hillock and flows towards the North East direction and meets the nullah at the flood gate or Mr. Laxman Bhot. From this it is concluded that the 63,300 m2 area (shown in red colour in the plan attached herewith) which forms the integral part of this report), which is a part of the property “ASTHGAL” belonging to Mr. Nicolau Fernandes and others, which is wrongly shown in the Survey no. 22/1 and recorded in the name of Partagal Saunsthan.” 7. Shri Ramani, learned Advocate for the Appellants, has also shown the map prepared by Shri Vikas Dessai, which is on record and which shows the area of 63,300 square metres as part of survey no. 22/1. However, all this material does not show that this area admeasuring 63,300 square metres is part of the property of the Plaintiffs and that the Defendant no. 1 is in possession of area 63,300 square metres more than the property owned by the defendant no. 1. 22/1. However, all this material does not show that this area admeasuring 63,300 square metres is part of the property of the Plaintiffs and that the Defendant no. 1 is in possession of area 63,300 square metres more than the property owned by the defendant no. 1. The Appellants have not placed any material on record to show the area of the properties owned and occupied by the Plaintiffs and the area of the properties owned and occupied by the Defendant no. 1. Without these details being on the record, it cannot be inferred that the Defendant no. 1 is in possession of an area admeasuring 63,300 square metres from the property of the Plaintiffs. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the reasonings and the findings given by the learned Trial Judge. The Appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.