Petitioner Re5pondents Verau 1 _ M1 g; HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CLIVLP, No‘34$ Qf 2009 Sunil Kumar, Jangde Slo Manmohan La! Jarugde, Aged about 36 years, f0 Qt.No.52/59, Torwa Colony Bilaspur, Tah hinH QggaSpur If‘ f: \ “i \v.\;.i State of Chhattisgarh Through : Police :ncharge of Tsrwa, Palice Statior. Tarwa, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) Mann: Jamwe {3/0 Emushan Singh Madhakar “Jk SuraiE Kama? Jandge, Aged about 29 years Rio Viliage Pachpedi, Ps5§ce Sta€§cn 8: Tah Masturé, ismct Biiaspur (Lia) (PETlTlQN UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE) Dvn i icEenL: ‘1 Shri Bharat Rajput, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Raiendra Tripathi; Panel iawyer for reeponde.t No,1l$tate: ($3 :Hen’ble Mr: TaP.$harma5 J‘) ORAL ORDER {Peeeed an 29‘“ Jew, 2999} vii The petitioner hag fiied thi$ petition for queehment 0f the F,LR: registered in Crime No‘SSfZQOS at Police Station-Toma; Dietriet Bilasgur against the oetitioner for the offence puniehablev under Section 498—A of the Indian Penal Code 2: Learned counsel for the petitioner eubmits that the FIR‘ ie falee end has lodged after filing of divorce petition by the petitioner and even lodged the complaint before the police by the oetitioner, 3, On the other handi lear.ed counsel for respondent NeiiState opposee the oetition and eubmite that at this stage investigation has not been concluded therefore; this petition i5 premature: Learned counsel further submits that the FJR, discloses the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the lndianPenal Code against the petitioner. 4 This is a oetition under $ectton a8? of the Qode of Griminai Frocedure, 1973 and at this stage the Court is required to see as to whether FJR‘ or document collected on behalf of the nrosecution is admitted in its face value or \ \ a D S? a3 to whether any cenviction wouid be paSsible and if such. conviction would not be go$$ible; then $uch regi$tration of case would be Qreundless, 5‘ Fran: geru$al of the HR, it reveals that the petitioher has committed smeiiy upon reseandent N02 in cennection with demahd a? dowry who i$ wife of ‘2‘— 6. Consequently, the getition has no merit, same is liable to be dismissed arid il: is hereby {lissmiesed l Sdl— T, P. Sharma I Judge