S? ' i-IGWELE Si-IRI‘ $iii$ Arrm ' iwr HEZZT‘ Rm5rumurm‘rS ajkumar Agrawai, son of Hai‘iram grawal, agsCl about 3O years, rssident 0f awa Kunj Raigarh, T’ehsii ane‘t District 810 ‘3Qrh 'La‘u: i of Chha‘Liisgalh, > 2m in w 7:1 M R-R-9.n0'7 51111 Mano; Agrawai, I“ By the instant patit applicant has Chaiieng€d Earned 4th Additionai Ses K6V1S10I1 NO. l55/ZUU3 i petitioner against the onier MaglStI‘atE B'll‘St UlaSS, has 1 avocate‘ tor the applicant. ion undsr Section 482 of CLPC. T116 the Gui-31‘ dated 1149—2006 passad by $1011 Judge, FTC, Raigai"h 1'11 Criminal V11€I€DY m6 Unmlllal I‘EVlSlOIl >OI U1€‘ dated l'/-1U-'2()Uo passed by the dudiCial )een rejected. Gnevance ol the app llcallt ls that U16 IBSDORCIEHI 1116(1 a ClVll t, according to the ailegations of the lbllC d00um€llt WaS 1116C! alld 011 Ul€ D8313 applicant was obtained. Learned dud1c1al e impugned order, rejected the compiaint e complainant who is defendant No. 2 in sult and 1n the saict Stu complainant, a Iabticated p' of that, a decree against the Magistrate First Class by ft with an observation that th the suit has not taken any ( Nhm MiSHm J. . . Thakur, son of AS. Thakur, aged )o 43 years, resident of Civil aigarh, Tehsii and District Raigarh (C.G.) uf Lines {F G i \ ~'= *‘ ‘1 through District agistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in er ~—:~~7 aocument iiied by the piaintiff is fablicated, even other wise no widence has besn adduced to estabiish that the said document was 'fabxicatéd and with this obServation, the complaint has been dismissed. The revisionai Co urt after considering the maten’ai and evidence adduced by the complainant in his compiaint case has affmned the flnding of the 1eamed Magistrate, which does not cail for any interference. The revision being devotd of substance is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at admission stage itself. /rc [theW