Slogte Bweh IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. iM /2010 (S.B.) APPUCATION UNDER SECTION 482 OP CiaBdEINAL PROCEDURE CODE APPLICANTS ACCUSED ly •^- €> ..•^ \^<^ -^' .<fr'5>^.^ %^^ \"<- 1. Omprakash S/o Ramu Dhobi, aged about 30 years, 2. Mamta W/o Omprakash Dhobi, aged about 25 years. 3. Ramu S/o Anjori Dhobi, aged about 50 years, 4. Pusaiya Bai, W/o Ramu Dhobi, aged about 47 years. All residents of Village Bhedani, police station Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS COMPLAINTS 1. Santoshi Bai, W/o Badri Ram Dhobi, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Bhedani, police station Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^" HI&H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Singte Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Cr.M.P. No. 189 of 2010 APPLJCANTS RESPONDENTS Omprakash diothers. Versus Santoshi Bai & another. Shri Syresh KumerVerma.counseifortheappliccOTts. Shri Viyek Sharma, PL forthe State/respondent No. 2. PETmON UNE5ER SECTION 482 OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL OR DER Present petition filed under Section 482 of thp Code of J Crimina! Procedure is directed against the impugned order -| dcrted 30.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, | Bemetara, Distt. &urg in Criminai Revision No.44/2009 pari-ly | affirming the order doted 5.3.2009 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicia! Magistrate, Bemetara, Distt. Durg | in Criminal Case No.185/2009. Learned Additional Chief | Judidal Magistrate has framed the charges against the ;- appliccmts for the offences under Sections 448,427, 294,323, i 506-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas in revision s instead of Section 448, the revisionai Court has framed ths | charge under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Accordin9 to Shri Verma, counse! for the applicants, on ; the basis of compiaint made by respondent No, 1, the police ' authorities have enquired into the matter and arrived at the conclusioh t'nat proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 (35of the Code of the Criminal Procedure are to be initiated by the Sub Divisiona! Magistrate. He submits that when the police outhorities have not regteteped oiny ccBe cgainst' the petitioners, the couri' below has erred in law in registering the aforesaid offence against them. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the State/respondent No. 2 submits tho* on the basis of the complaint ond the statement of the witnesses of thecomplainont;the court" below has framed the charge ogainstthe petitioners and the same connot be interfered CEf this stage in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Gode of Criminal Procedure. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material avoilab!e on record. 5. From the material ovailable on record it is clear that prima facie the offence is made out against the appliconts. The defence of the applicants coinnot be considered at this stage. From the report of the police officer, it is not clear whether the proper enquiry was conducted by him or not. In this view of the matter when prima facie the offence appears to have been made out, this Court can not interfere with the same. The present does not appear to be a rare case to interfere with the order of court'below froming charges. 6. The petition is thus without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. StL'- Pritinker Diwaker Judge