N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASEQg C.R.M.P. No. lg /2oo7 Agglicants : 1) Iftekhar Ali S/o Late Accused Muneer Ali Aged about 65 years, Ku. Nadeem Akhtar D/ 0 Iftekhar Ali, Aged about 30 years Mohammad Yusuf Khan-y S/o Late Mohammad «x ar Khan : “3&1 qbw‘ Ebyw v~ i IIW Applicants 1 to 3 are R/o Motitalab Para Jagdalpur, Dist : Bastar (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through— District Bastar, Non—Agplicant Magistrate Jagdalpur (C.G.) PLIC TION UNDER SECTION 4gOF THE CODE OF RIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR QUASHMEET OF THE ORDERS OF THE SUBORDINATE COURTS 1 C > ./'"\ xW° HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cri. M.P. No. 26 of 2007. Iftekhar Ali and others. Applicants VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh. Shri Dhirendra Pandey counsel for the applicants. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent/State. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. O R D E R (28.01.2010) Present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur dismissing the revision of the applicants and confirming the order dated 22.3.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Jagdalpur in Criminal Case No. 19/2005 by which the application of the applicants for discharge was dismissed. 2. From the record it appears that on 22.3.2006 vide order Annexure A-2 learned Magistrate had framed the charge against the applicants under section 420/34 IPC' after appreciating the evidence available on record and rejected the application filed under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. in revision also, learned Revisional Court has elaborately considered all the aspects of the matter and the impugned order has been passed after assigning valid reasons. 3. Prima facie, as per the material available on record, the offence . alleged against the applicants under section 420/34 IPC is clearly made out and therefore this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned being a well reasoned one is not liable to be interfered with. 4. The petition being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed. Sdl- ’ Pritinker Diwaker Judge