!iia..;,i. :vvs- —78 sn^iw lt('ii+ ^V ^T^ sft+llch 3^T'^PTT^T, rfiTf1tiJI<i, Rfrtlti^ @ <-.<-. /w • P t^o. )<; l/^oo c NIMdl sh<4t* "^ 200 an^r i^qi (ijdf^g^g) ?(<nwof?<T an^i Cr CSInale BiBidii Hon'bl PetitioBer ct)i*([(n^li +iM<nf tf^fe^l' <R>T^R ^TaiRrasiit?! iBjAr, Justlce l>hlmadFa AUshrfli Sijnt. Sutochann Kashynp, wife of Shri U^nes Kfl^iynp, aged about 45 years, Ctjete Bahelin. (ST), resident of M|agarptra Road, Police Stotion Civil Li|ies. Bilaspur, Tahsit d Distt. Bitaspur (46.) Vs RKt»ndents 1. l&t-ate of Chhattisgarh, through the |5tat<on 1-louse Officer, Civil Lme ]Police Staiton, Bitaspur, Tahsil A Ibisrt. Bil^spur (C.e.) 2.|Bahskor Rne. S/o Khushnl Rno, |resident of Oabripara, Police Stnt'ion IKotwati, Bilaspur, Tohsil & Distt. |Bitospur (C.&.) 1.82007 Mr. 5.1. Ali, Advocote for the appticant. Mr. 6.K. Beriwat. Dy. A.|&. fopcespondent' No.l. Heard. I.A. No.1/07, cn appli^oKon for toking documents on recopd is altowed. Documents are tnken By this petition under on record. Section 482 ofCr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing of Rr|st Information fteport drtal 24L2006 ..< XI-HC—78 3D^f ^R-li.'* ^STT 3Tf^T ?o+ii<=h 6Z- 7SSI •^WW<i, tS'rfl'M'Ko, (qrtl+fy ^WW **1|eb (^.•^.f-i^r- IS^/ofe an^r TI^) C;pf^5W) 200 ^RIIW ^lf??t SII^T registered under Crime No. qiN[<n'4ll *11MCTt ^fe'Sl' ^I^R ^siRnaii^r /2006 in the Police Stort-ion Civil LWIM, Bilaspur. This is second apptica^ion ofthe nahire,tis earlier applicat'ion Le. AA.Cr.C. No.1585/06 filedl^ for want of prosecut'ion. - The younds wged by| the applicant was dismissed on 23.8.2006 learned counsel for the applicant orally as well as in the memo of peti^ion are that the matter is purely wf civil naf-ure and no offence und^r Section 420 of IPC is made out, as is evident from the FIR itself. previous purchaser, as agre Cause of acfion, if any, was avaitable to the iment to sate hos been entered into with the comptainant only subseqjient to earfiertgreemeRt iintfer-espect to the same land. The coraplain^ is p'e-mcthire, as the snnie hae been filed without notice to the apjjlicnnt for specific perfwnuBice of the agreeroent caid the previou^ purchaser namely Lav Kumar Dhuri has already submitl'ed in writirig before the police thct the ngreement entered between him and th^ a|>plicant stands cancetled. j I have henrd leamedj counsel •fw the p«*J*ioner. I hwe clso perused the FIR. From perusal of the FjIR dated 24.1.2006 lodged by complainont Bhaskar Rao, it is observed tho* the allegations have been mnde that the applicmt has entered in^o an agreement of snle with respect' to the ..< SiltM.^I'ft'IW WT3?!^i ih^i'* *! ^L G^ 3:EcT ^|A||C>A|, ®Tfi+)'IS,(SjQ'.iyy Nltlril *NW (^.. ^. p. r^o ls(/6^ 3!l^T'q3% (lpf'j,»<<W) 200 ¥Rnw(tosn^i remindlers disputed land, obtained •"•', deed despite repeat'ed hos alreody entered into an agj <md thus the applicnnt <feas ('t practicing fraud with a purpos| From the allegations under Section 420 of IPC is As far as the other del of petition is concerned, th^ cannot be a^judicuted inthe In the resutt, the petrt- be dismissed and it is hereby Rs.lOlOOO/ ag^eement mfade '^rispiPT ^iti^f ^ fezt T!w5R ^; SJRPT 311^1 .O^OOO/- birt he is not exeeirt'ing the sate id^rs. t-1e has ulso teornt that' the applicant of sale with one Lcw Kumar Dhuri |entered into on agreeroent of sale by of cheoit'ing. a^ailnbte in the FIR prima-facie offwice out. (ence taken by the petitiwier in the memo same ore matters of inv«tigatton ond p|etition for qucehing of FIR. ion has nosAstance, the same is liable to ^iismissed. Dhirendra Mishra Judge x' GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50.y00.