fWw.i g^ed. Siiigte Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH-AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 CR.M.P.NO. ^ 07- OF 2011 PETITIONER ; Deepak Kumar Dewangan, S/o Ramadhar Dewangan, aged about 35 years, R/o Pande Para, Balod, Police Station and Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.) (Wrongly mentioned as Pande Para, Tahsil and District Durg) VERSUS Girja Shankar, S/o Late Chhanulal Mishra, aged about 68 years, R/o 2/B Road No. 1, Sector-4, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) ^" PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OFTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL P.ROCEDURE, 1973 w^.U^' ^— .....^^-- .I ^i.""'v k»»N»t] RESPONDENT 311^1 qiT ft-li* (Tt!H 3T|^T st)*iict> *tWvn 9>N|e|» ^ST -><]<41d-4, »Tll'l-l<l<o, [sidiyy ^.(?Q.P.^,^2-/Zni WI. 200 sn^T '(raqr (i<:it^<,4) wnw^iteisii^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohart 02-08-2011 Shri P. P. Sahu,counsel for tl1< Heard on admission. This petition has been filed dated 19-04-2011 passed by the Fje\ dated 18-02-2011 passed by the affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitif Judicial Magistrate while passing tt)< under Section 410 ofthe Cr.P.C., h^s and has passed the order oftransferjof Magistrate First Class, Durg. Learned counsel for the petiti|3ner order in exercise of power conferred Court below ought to have taken inljo case filed by the petitioner, evidenc^ Magistrate at Balod, and therefore, would have been more convenient be transferred to' Vne Court at Durd. further submits that the Court belovt 410 of the Cr.P.C. on an applicatior) when no case was registered agains| if on the date, the jurisdiction has been registered, itwould amountto Section 410 of the Cr.P.C. Next inllo 'tlliclll") *fl*<fi'i 4 'ft%t <|a|<SK ^?3TRm sii^i Shrivastava, J. e petitioner. |3y the petitioner aggrieved by order jevisional Court, by which, the order phief Judicial Magistrate has been >ner sought to contend that the Chief |e order on respondent's application i^s not exercised discretion judiciously cases mechanically to the Judicial submits that before passing the lunder Section 410 ofthe Cr.P.C., the consideration that in the complaint nc^ has already been recorded by the ctinsidering this aspect ofthe matter, it the parties that the case ought to Learned counsel for the petitioner )/ exercised its powe|- under Section filed by the respondent, at the time the petitioner. He submits that even been exercised and if the case has ^xceeding jurisdiction conferred under submission of learned counsel for the fbr •RT, U«l-li<('IM—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. s. SII^T ^il R-fi* Tft!IT 3H^T ^>*n^> 'TST '^ww^, ®Tiiy<is,rsicii'My ^^i(v",4^<^l WI, 200 3(I^ff 'qa^ (1clt3«l<t^) TOnw^ifcr sn^i •e—l_' petitioner is that the respondent is v< are transferred to Durg, because, hi the trial in the complaint made by the frohn A perusal of the provisions co| shows that wide power has beeiti Magistrate to withdraw any case made over to, any Magistrate try such case himself, or refer it fcji Magistrate competent to inquire into| the face of it, does not obligate the one of the two cross cases only to pending. The grounds, which have| merely related to convenience of tfl jurisdiction or abuse<| the processj Submission of learned counsel for th4 application under Section 410 of| respondent, no case was registered no order of transfer could be passed During the course of arguments, lea[ submitted that though, on the date, case was registered, yet, on the dat^ exercised his power on 18-02-2011,| was registered. It is clear that the Magistrate exercised its jurisdiction,| registered. Therefore, that ground dc| tf)l^lid41'l HlHdT^f Fe^ <f»it$i< ^aifipian^T iry keen to ensure that all the cases may make all attempts to frustrate petitioner. itained in Section 410 ofthe Cr.P.C. conferred on the Chief Judicial or recall any case, which he has suborcfnate to him, and may inquire into or inquiry or trial to any other such or try the same. The provisions on |Chief Judicial Magistrate to transfer Courts, where the cross cases are been raised by the petitioner are ^e parties rather than any error of of law or miscarriage of justice. petitioner that on the date when the the Cr.P.C. was moved by the against the petitioner, and therefore, |an 18-02-2011, cannot be accepted. t-ned counsel for the petitioner fairly jvhen application was submitted, no when the Chief Judicial Magistrate application filed by the respondent Idate, on which, the Chief Judicial a case against the petitioner was )es not help the petitioner, unless a Rt, tISFIWira—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ^KK^ VSB3 ^WPIT a»*<i<»> 3^T "4|Atl<yi'4, ai-al'M'Ko, fs«vii<-iy,< . c^y}^,w^tfi^\ >*1|Cti •^n; 200 sn^'r ''ra^ (itlsi't?) 3ii^i ^r f<-fi* ^tTT 3TI^ff sf)*i|cp Tumane CWI^T ^ri^cf 3H^?T -\ on clear case of interference based abuse of the proc.ess of law or mis[ petitioner ordinarily cannot claim thaf| the forum convenient to him. Therefore, order passed by the Courts below. petitioner expresses apprehension trial of complaint case filed by the support such apprehension. Howev^r, shall decide both the cases without uhdue With the aforesaid observatiori 'bl'iiclll-f *<|t(cfi 4^S <fa«si< ^aifipisn^r the ground of Jurisdictional error, ;arriage of justice is made out. The trial of the case may be made at am not inclined to interfere with the |At the last, learned counsel for the ^iat the respondents may delay the )etitioner. 1 do not find any merit to ^r, it is observed that the Magistrate delay. the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge imrfhfcfta^lIIRRT^ -FS/140—2/2011—1 ,SO,000.