ingle Benc?h IN THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Cr.M.P.NQ. ^^f> OF 2011 PETITIONERS // ^•^--^t^ p^ntedbySb"^^;^ D^...^&-;i?^i""'"""" RESPONDENT 1. Kamal Shanna aged about 49 Years S/o Mohanlal Sharma, R/o Ramadhin Marg behind R.K. Studio, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Kishare Khobragade aged about 42 Years S/o Motilal Khobraghade, R/o Hospital Colony, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Vs State OfChhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) i ^L^t^C>[^ ^^L G^^^C a- <^ HC—78 s^ 3)^1 w h'H'^ WIT an^r itiiiqi \.::.., 'T' ^•Sf ^?PT!?H, ^•:dt?f^TS, fSRTCTy . ^.(^'p t^ •(JI^ sn^T T^; (•l^f3«'i^T) TRtwafta 31^1 S.B.: Honlble^hrLManindra Mohan 11-08-2011 Shri Rakesh Thakur, counsel fo Shri Akhil Mishra, Government Advocate for the State. Heard. This petition has been filed a^i (Annexure P-5) passed by the Re\|isional No.18/2011, by which, the order pass|ed (Annexure P-3) has been affirmed. cjise Learned counsel for the petition^rs of allegations, which have been petitioners, in order to make out a registered sale deed and the amount| not been paid, moved an application production of the document as also regarding the fact that a letter for stop| the learned trial Court has rejected th^ consideration and ignoring that the been sought, are necessary for just| Learned counsel for the petitioners ir) reliance on the decision in the case M.P. and Ors., 1999 (1) MPJR537. ^iTafeqi''; tTmc'ff ^ feet ~tfNl?R ^sjfaHsn^T SJiriyastaya, J. the petitioners. grieved by order dated 17-03-2011 Court in Criminal Revision ed by the trial Court on 24-01-2011 submits that looking to the nature lejveled against the petitioners, the that property was sold under a |as daimed by the complainant has Ijnder Seetion 91 of the Cr.P.C. for [production of records of the bank t>ing payment was issued. However, application without due and proper dijicuments, production ofwhich, has and proper decision of the case. support of his submission placed c|f Gayatri Bais& Anr. Vs. State of .1 :.:.feF ~3^1 ^n?n^TTT, «?^f^,fcjdiyli< T sn^I ^iT f<-fl°n '^1 STI^T sr>if Tumane s^V ^^v C^^y) TCTW •aftg aii^r — ^ From the impugned orders of th] Court, it appears that the petitioner^ commission of offence under Sectioni allegation appearing against the pet obtained valuable properi:y by giving,cl|ieque to the complainant, which later on bounced and the complainant has The application of the petitioners has /were not even framed. It is stated that framed. At the initial stage of trial, if th it cannot be said that the petitioners truth will not come out, because, the recorded. The complainant has also prosecution witnesses so far. In tt application of the petitioners does examination of the prosecution witnes; is found necessary, the petitioners wo application under Section 91 ofthe Cr.l With the aforesaid observation, TOifeqt-^ 'wS -4 fe^ TFSR^R ^•aifwaiit^ e trial Court as well as the Revisional are facing prosecution for alleged 1420 of the I.P.C. The substance of ptioners is that the petitioners had alleged that he has been cheated. filed at the time when the charges ^ubsequently the charges have been ^ Court has rejected the application, |would in any manner prejudiced or Iprosecution evidence are yet to be hot been come out to examine the |e circumstances, rejection of the not appear to be illegal. After ^es, particularly the complainant, if it pld be at liberty to move appropriate I'.c. he petition is dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge J- •fcs