« @ .yMFMH.Y mm (W) mwag mmm mm§fgém‘ émifmauw s3 :Hon’BLE CR. m. s3 11:0. hHiRErmRA 147 OF 2007 MIsHRA J. AFFLICANTS 1. Ropram Patei, S/o. Rakshadhar, aged about 56 yeals, Occupation Service, R/o. Vil‘lage Gcjamuda, T'ahsii 8t. District Raigmrh, at present residing at New Basti, Darq‘gamuda, Kotm Road, Raigarh, Tahsil ek. DiEm'ct Raigarh (CG) Smt. T.K.Pate1, W/o. Shn' Roopram Patel, aged about 53 years, Occupatiorr Howife, R/o. Village Gejamuda, Tahsil and stn‘ct Raigarh, at prescnt residing at New Basti, Darogamuda, Kotla Road, Raig h, Tahsil 6a District Raigarh (CG) go mm u‘e i Vs. H0ii-AF?L1€AKTS 1. Diii Kumar Patel, S/‘o. Chandrabhan Pate, aged about 38 yeaxs, Occupation Agn‘ ulture, Rio. Village Gejamuda, RS. KO Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and District ‘R ' h(CG) 2. Sta of Chhat'tisgarh, through Distict Ma ‘sttate, Raigarh (CG) e Shn' Ufram Pandey, co /‘ 31m G.K.Bema1, Dy. A. Heard. GRPRJ >~ L... FS/246 ‘g 2/2007 ~ 50,000. ‘emma:mmmmw ' Mm m WW,W,W W‘L 200 mm (W) mwm mmm W W‘§WW ‘ ‘ wm‘m €6aimm The petitioners by the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure h prayed for quashment of cn‘minal in complaint case No. 665/ 2006. is that from bare perusal of the a proceedings iniu'ated against th The grievance of the peu'tion ii complaint of Annexure A] 1 nled y the respondent No. l in the Court of Judiciai Magistrate First Clas 406, 465, 468 and 471/34 ofi it is argued that even if th whole allegations contained in the under Sections 406,465,468 and Raigarh no odence under Sections is made out. complaint is accepted, no oden 4'71 is made out. However, the l amed Magistrate has mechanically registeted the oEence Without applicah’on of mind. it is further argued that from the allegations f the complaint it would be evident that the allegations are against Company namely Swain Bhoomi Forest India Limited. However, Company has not been arrayed as an accused person in the c mpiaint and therefore the total proceedings at the instance of th complainant is abuse of process of law and the same deserves to he ashed. I have heard counsel for petitioner. I have gone throughthe mplaint of Annexure A] l. Taking into ’consideration the alleg ns in the complaint that the complainant was made to pay c rtain sum on the promise that the same shall be returned three ld after a particular period (5 1/2 years) and thereafter no payment was disbursed to the complainant GRPRJ VA FS/246—4 2/2007 50.000. « aiymmumwmuwmwm' e e , P e e u o 'o a - o W mam, m, W 200 mm (13W) mmm waném‘m WWW *z,’ mm WW f3$W $31‘mm \ prima facie an offence under S‘iction 420 of the IPC appears to be made out. In the aforesaid circumstz the criminal proceedings at the entertained. in the result, the petitiol noes, the petition for quashment of nsfance of the petitioners cannot be being thus devoid of substance is habie to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. 50,000. GRPRJ --r— FS/246—r 2/2007