\ \ \_ N THE HIGH COURT ‘:F';IUDICA'TURE AT BILASPUR C.G. cgiqp.No; [34/ / 2006 £9” / ,, ./ 1. Sarful Ansari S/o Roshan Ansari aged 28 years resident of maganpur in the Pohce Stat1on Gola d1stt a; Hajan Bag (B1har). 3) RaJ1V @ RaJu ( Raje ) S/o Doman Prasad Sao aged 26 years res1dent of asod1 1n the police station D1stt. Patna ( Bihar ) 1’) $9 @gélg ed VERSUS (ESPONDENT Q1 1. State of Chhattisgarh.Throrgh the (Police Station Bhatapara Distt. Raipur ) Collector Raipur , District —Raipur. 2. Ashanand Wadhwani S/o Harpal Das aged 62 years propriter V Shankar dal Mill bhagating ward Bhatapara D1stt Raipur (C G ) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 4.2M .1 r w__f M” I ) , . g " TR WW(W) ‘ mam WWW WW%WW mataféam éawanw 15.02.2007 I Shri JR. Verma, Counsel for the petitioners. Shri G.K. Beriwal, Dy. Advucate General for the State. Heard on admission. Atter going through the re it lodged by the Proprietor of the mm namely Ashanand Wadhwani (Annexure 2), it appears that there is prime facie . material against these personé an the crimina! case as we" as charges framed against them under the aforem ntioned Sections of IPC by the learned Magistrate cannot be quashed. The petition has no merit a *’/// §Di f n €y§§3§ This petition is directed f0: quashing of the charges as also quashing of the proceedings of the criminai tnai pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First. Class, Bhatapara. lt appears that on the r rt of complainant Ashanand Wadhwani Proprietor Shankar Dal Mill Bh at Singh Ward Bhatapara District Ralpur (C Gg)to the Police Station Bha apara a criminal case was registered against the petitioners under Sections 407 420 read With Section 34 of IPC. The allegations are that consignment of certain food grains was dispatched by the complainant th ough the vehicle of Ajmera Roadways and it was entrusted to the Driver nam Iy Sarful Ansari-petitioner No.1 herein. This consignment was amounting to R .2,42,505I-. The consignment did not reach to: its destination in the State of W Bengal and later on, it was found that the' Driver took the vehicle to Patna har and sold the property to its receiver — petitioner No.2 herein lt is arg that the aforesaid act was done by the driver 1 on the instmctions of co-accused — eeru, who is the owner of the truck, // the same is dismissed. // Sigmx &&ma 3o®g§ f . RT.O. e o e N - i u -