Pmmonms (AccusED) iix Q: f“ @ HIGH COURT OF‘ CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 39/2009 Shri Shiv Prasad Velma, Sjo Khcdu Ram, aged about 45 yeam 45 yeaxs, cultivator and resident of village Sarwadih, Police Station Kasdol District Raipur(C.G.). Bhupal Prasad. Verma S/o Lsdiram, aged about 43 years, resident of village- Jamdih, Police Station Kasdol, District Raipur(C.G.). Prabhu Ram Verma (Advocate) (By profession Legal Practice) resident of (Village Gadedih) Baloda Bazar, District Raipur(C.G.). Dcshmukh Verma S/o Lalata, aged about 40 yeals resident of Village Jamdih, Police Station Kasclol District Raipur (C.G.), Dauram- Verma S/o Shobharam, aged about 48 years, resident of village Baxda, Police Station Kasdol District Raipur (C. G.). Nakul S/o Shiv Ram aged about 62 years resident of village Bagbuda Tahsil Baloda Bazar, (Police Station Kasdol) District Raipur (C.G.). Patit Pawan Kashyap S/o Ram Narayan, aged about 60 years cultivator and resident of village Paxasa Pali Police Stau'on Kasdol, Disnict Raipur (C.G.), Maharu Ram Verma S/o Bodhmm, aged about 40 years cultivator resident of Village Ahilda Police Station Kasdol District Raipur (C G) The State of Chhatlisgarh through the Collector Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. VERSUS RESPONDENTS (SB :Hon’ble Mr; T.P.Sharma, J.) ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 28/ 10/2009) Present:-. Shri Janak Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Arvind Kumar Dubey, P.L. for the State/respondent NO. 3. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code) for quashment of the order dated 6/ 10/08 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar Disirict Raipur in criminal revision No. 12/2007 aErming the onier Ming charge dated 7/8/2006 passed by Judicial Magistxate First Class, Baloda Bazar District Raipur in‘ cn'minal complaint case No. 1 110/2002. Leained counsel for the petiu'oners submits that present case is pending since 1996 and case is pending before the trial Couxt for evidence after hauling of the charge in comp1aint case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he seeks to withdraw this petition and requests that court below be directed to decide the case expeditiously. Prayer is allowed. Consequently, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, considering the pendency of the case since 1996 trial court is directed to decide the case as early as possible within 4 months hum the date of nling of the copy of the order on behalf of the petitioners. -1,» Ki fP « Sdl- T. P. Sharma. Judge , J i C“ V