r; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIOKER Cr. M.P. No.598/2008 Om. Prakash, S/ o Raiapher Rajak, aged 39 years, R/o Behind Tuteja Show Room, TeU Para, P;S. City KotwaU, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT Smt. Kaoila Sah:u,W/o Laxmi Prasad Sahu, aged 50 years, R/o Near Dr. Dubey's Clmic, TeU Para, P.S. City KotwaU, Diatt. Bilaspur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTON 4S2 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. ~{SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.SIiarina, J.) Present:-. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 24/10/2009) 1. 2. Heard, t, This petition uiider Section 482 of fUe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (ia short 'the Code') for quashiaent of fhe order dated 29/6/07 passed by ChiefJudicial Magistrate, BUaspur ia unregistered eriminal coniplaint case.Oniprakash v. Siat. Kamla Sahu and fhe order dated 2/9/08 passedbyAdditional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in criTninal revislon No. 176/2007 where by leamed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur has dismissed fhe complamt filed on behalf of fhe petitioner agaiust fhe respondeut for the offeiice punishable uader-Secfdon 420, 467 offhe Indiaa Penal Code. respondent Quashment is prayed on the ground that the land by registered sale deed showing 10 ft. norftiera side but ftiere was no such road iu norfhem. has sold road in the side aad l^^^^^^^^^^,:. ^' 'r' 2- at present laud of fhe petitioner is surrounded by private persons and thereby respondent is cheated the petitioner and court below has not takea cognizaace ofthe aforesaid offence, 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioxier are heard. 5. Order impugned, sale deed aad other docuiaents perused. It reveals from. fhe copy oftfae sale deed that respondent has sold the land as showin^g the 10 ft. road ia the northeru side aud aceordiag to fhe report of the Police tliere was no road iri the norfhera side. The; cpurt Taelow has not considered fhe very aspect of fhe sale deed which shows fhat there is 10 ft. wide road in aorthem si(le of the land in dispute. CIuef Judicial Magistrate has disiuissed the complamt without issuauce of uotice and revisional Cotirt has also dismissed the revision without issuaace ofthe notice to fhe respondent. Therefore, I do not fiiid any necessity of the issuaace of fhe notice to the respondent. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur is required to inake further iaquiiy iato fhe complaint in accordaace with Section 398 ofthe Code ofGrtmmal Procedure, 1973. 6. Consequendy, ttus petition is aUowed aad the order impugned is hereby quashed. Ghief,;Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur is directed to make further iaquuy into fhe complaint in accordance wifh Section 398 ofthe Code of Crimuial Procedure, T.P. Shayma Judge 1