IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER ......S^-t-t P.R. Ke. SlBB's^^-' prBsenteilb»Stiri^..A^;,-f--"r'- RESPONDENTS Cr._M.P. N0.3H ^> / 2011 " KOU. -Rafcu @ Rajnarayan Sahu S/o Sundarlal Sahu, aged about 45 years, R/o. Nehru Chowk, Baloda Bazar, Distt-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.). 2. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER^ECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE atBSs—ffiatoteiB —""• ^7"'!^^^ I, '<v:ass% 1 ^ ^Ss^/^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MAMNDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Cr.M.P. No.348/2011 Raju @ Rajnarayan Sahu State of Chliattisgarh & Ors. RE^PONDBNTS [Petitlon u/S 482 ofthe Gr.P.CI Shri R.S. Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Panel Lawver for State/respondents. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 18.8.2011) Heard on admission. A, 2. This petition has been filed tiy the petitioner assailing fhe correctness and validity of order dated 19.5.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No.82/11, by which order dated 2.12,2010 passed by fhe Sub Divisional Magistrate tn Cruninal Case No.26/111, has been afBrmed. 3. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submitted that the proceedings under Section 110 of fhe Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balodabazar even fhough no crinitnal case is pending against the petiuoner and in ofher cnmm.al case, earlier he was acquitted of fhe charges; He F' • • ^--'r r" -2- also subinits that the iaitiation of such proceedings are clearly Ulegal as fhe proceedtags have been drami mechanicaU;^ without due and proper consideration of the provision contained m Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that earlier also such proceedings were drawn against the petitioner. It is submitted that notice requirmg the petitioner to show-cause and also requiring fhe petitioner to give bond for keeping peace during fhe pendency of fhe proceedings are illegal because the provision of Section 110 ofthe Cr.P.C. attracted only when a person is proved to be a habitual ofiender and in fhe present case, fhe petitioner has not been found guilty of charges leveUed against him in various crmiinaE cases, on the other hand, he has been acquitted from fhe charges, fherefore, no such proceedings can be drawn. 4. From the preltminary order which has been passed by fhe Sub Divisional Magistrate, it is revealed fhat fhe petitioner has been involved tn various criminal cases and fhere are allegations against fhe petitioner of being involved ia various activities mcludtag gambling. On the basis of primafacie consideration, a notice has been given to the petittoner to show cause as to why bond of Rs.5,000/- be not taken as also security for keepin^ peace for a period for one year. Therefore, it is clear fhat fhe Magisti-ate has not taken any final decision in the matter, but the petitioner has been given a notice to show-cause. The petitioner would always be at liberty to submit that the proceedmgs are liable to be dropped by giving specific details of variDus cruninal cases, pending and decided. The prunafade satisfaction, which is -3- /07b PraveerL recorded by the Magistrate to mitiate proceedings, cannot be said to be whoUy irrelevant. On this consideration, tJie revisional Court has also dismissed fhe revision, noticing that the petitioner has only been given a show cause notice. 5. I do not find any Ulegality in fhe orders passed by the Magistrate and the rexdsional Court, However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take aU defences and to show-cause against the _ proposed action of seekiag bond and security for keeping peace. 6. With the aforesaid observations, fhe petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^:i-^=-