—78 sf^v y^ R-fi* TTSIT ^n^T sb^ich TSef -tiw\vft<.i, vi-^ww, Rwiuy ^Wdl **<!<* "V^ 200 gii^yr wra; C'pfyRw) ^RIIW ^lfct 311^1 SIN6LEBB4CH: HON'BlE JUSTCCE &HIRENDRA MISHRA W.P. Mrt. 12271 No.1792 of 20)8 PETnTONER (befendont) RESPONOBIT (Plaintiff) 27.03.2008 Kirbn Smt. Lahoti, Housewi Shankar Lahoti, wife of Shri Chandr'akishor'e |a9ed about 42 yeors, Occupation- fe. resident of L.I.S. 36, Sector-1, |Ncgar, Raipur. Vs dated Mr. B.P. Sharma, Heard on admi^ion. The petitioner by this India has impugned the order District Judge has rejected the 4 Seetion 10 of the CPC for st<yin| the ground that on the same alle^ & 468 of the IPC has been filed] Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur.I Learned counsel for the p^ the civil suit and evidence of the examination of the piaintiff's witj exposed. MandeepjSingh fiill. son of Late Avtar Singh 6ill, aged ab(iut 40 yecrs, Occupation-Business, resident t>f Sector-2, Hoi»eNo.C/92, Oevendra Nagar, R^ipur, P.S. Devendro Nd9cr, Raipur Advocate|for the petitioner. iti<iF<:TiiH *fl*T<^ tfj^1^ '<Rfl^R ^ 3TRFT <Hf^| petjtion under Art'icle 227 of the Constitution of 2.2.2008 [Annexure P-1] whereby leorned ^pplicatjon of the petitioner herein filed under tiie proceedings of Civil Suit No.22A/07 on le^ations chorge sheet under* Sections 420,467 lagainst the petitionet' herein in the Courf of titioner submits that if the triat proceeds in xrties is recorded, in that case during cross- lesses, the defence of the petitioner shall be r^'-. sii^r.^T Vw* wn SIK^I **ii<* ->• •w. 3:sq- rt<|<)ic»<4, giTflyic, [Sfcil^y ^Wvil *t<|tb""""""""""""'"""""""""""""""""""^ 200 sii^yr 'qsra; (4ciF'i«i<{ti) Learned District Judge High Court rejected the applicati< noture of civil and cr'imind proceedings cannot be stayed on same facts. Hwirg heord leorned documents annexed with this peti that there is no illegolity, infirm ty trial court worrantif^ inference in|ex the Constitution of India. In the result, the petition| dismissed and it is hereby dismiss^d. °dP4f^i<i1i +ii+i<^*Tf i^t<il •<i<(i<^i< ii 3?igti aii^i re|/ing upon the various judgments of the M.P. cjn of the petitioner with the observation that prjsceedings are entirely different ond civif tfie ground of pendency of criminal case on the cou(isel for the petitioner and periKal of the 1-ion and order impugned, I am of the opinion or jurisdictional error committed by the i4®xerciseof jurisdiction under Article 227 of hos no substance, the sane deserves to be Sd/- DhuendraMishra —"Judge ?[)y"^T ^t? g^TO^r, —FS/59— SW —30.COU.