4 (^p HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner Respoadeiits C.R.M.P.No. 27/2009 VakU Sharma, S/o Shiv Poojan Sharaia, Aged about 53 years, occupation - Subedar Major (Platoon Coiainaader), 6th BataIUan Armed Force, Urdna, Distt Raigarh, R/o Uidna, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh(C.G.). Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Subhash Siagh S/o Kaaialbhaa Siagh, Aged about 50 years, Occupation -T.I. City Kotwali Raigarh, R/o Sidhi (M.P.) S*N. Paadey S/o Saakadik Prasad, Aged about 45 years, Occupation-Male Niirse, 6th BataUiaa Armed Force, Raigarh (C.G.), R/o Vfflage Post Maharajpur, Distt. Sidhi (M.P.). S.C, Parihar S/o Raviraj Parihar, Aged about 40 years, Reseryre Inspector, Distodct PoUce Force Raigarh, R/0 Rewa -(M.P.). Ku. Manjulata Kujur D/o Palajiusiyus Kujur, Occupation PoUce Liae Subedar, Distdct Police Force Raigarh, R/o Distt Surguja(C.G.). Ramlal Satyam S/o Not known, Aged about 40 years, Occupation Head Constable No. 265 Distorict PoUce Force Raigarh R/o Urdana TahsU & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). Gajpati Sidar, Revenue Inspector, Raigarh-1, CoUectorate Office, Raigarh (C.G.). Guru Prasad Pradhaa, Revenue Inspector Raigarh, CoUectorate Office Raigai-h (C.G.). PBTITION UNDBR SBCTION 482 OP CRJMINAL PROCEDURB CODB. 1973. (SB :Hoa?ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Hanuman Prasad, x^grawal, Advocate for thepetitioner. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 10/11/2009) 1, This petition under Section 482 ofthe Code ofCnmiaal Procedure, 1973 (ia short 'flie Code3) for quashment offhe order dated 12/12/08 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (F,T,C,)/Raigai'h in criminal revision ^:WS^^Ss2^:^-f ^-- ^fo No. 159/2007 affirming the oider dated 11/9/2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh m unregistered complaiat case where by learaed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh disniissed the comLplaint filed on behalfoftlie complaiaaat under Section 203 oftiie Code. 2. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner veheniently argued fhat petitioner has adduced sufficient niaterials for tafcmg cognizaace against tlie respondent but courts below has failed to take cognizance and fhereby conmutted aii Ulegality. 3. Leanied counsel for the petitioner further argued fb.at present petitioner was in. possessiou of fhe disputed laad aad boundary wall of fhe laad was demoUshed aiid crimmal tress pass had been committed by fhe respondent. 4. Order of court below aiid order of impugned perused. 5, It appears froni fhe record tliat present petitioner does not examiae aay witaess who show that which part of his land have been tress passed by the respoudent aad whefher who is occupier of fhe laad. The inaterial coUected on behalf of the coraplamant is not sufficient for taking cognizaace but this is not a case ia which complaiaant has not adduced any niaterial. In these circuinstances court was required to affordiag aa opportuuity of adduciag raaterial aad after takiag iato consideration fhe niaterial adduced on behalf of fhe complamant to pass fhe order afresh. 6, Consequently, tlie order is not sustamable. Petition is allowed. Order impugned aad order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh is hereby set aside. Case is remitted back to fhe Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh for makmg further inquiry m accordaace wifh Section 398 ofthe Code aad to pass fhe order afresh. Petitioner is directed to present before fhe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh on 14/12/09, Record aad copy of fhe order be sent to fhe tdal court iminediately, T.P. Sharma Judge ^