Single Bench BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. /2010 PETITIONER B APPLICANT ^ .?^? ^-"Gl^ •'>^S;'X'^, 6^ s"^'!7^^{ •^•^^ .^^ wffi RESPONDENT/ NON-APPLICANT Khemlal @ Bunty.s/o Mangluram Satnami, aged about 22 years, resident of Chingri, P.S. Anda, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through police station Anda, Dist. Durg, C.G. L^' PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. ff^\ ^ ^ OT^t'^1 feil?; 31)^1 ^)^i •^f^I .-'A. =F T°? i't|l'41<'f<<, »fll'u*is,(qciiuy 3T?^T XRTO '.i.'&s..'.; HIHCTI a>11<*> (c<'b<ff- 311^1'SS'WSfCT ao : rion uie ann nianinara iviunan •3nnvasiava, >j. 02-12-2D10 Shri P.R.Patankar, counsei onn oaiisn uupia, uovernrn Mearo. l|or ine peiiuoner. int Acivocate lor tne ytate. Thls Dstitlon Is d roctsd sos Aduitional Sessions Judge, Durg! petiiioner's appiieatiun uncier oectic] Assailing ihe correctness ai| iearned counsei for the petitioner examined, iater on 27/04.i2GiO,| orosecuirix nas oeen soiernriizea. necessary ro re-exarnine ine suumitted that Section 311 CrPC piositcuu uring liie truin Detore uie uourt, $s cornmjssion of offence under Seil GircurfisiQHces ouQni 10 nsve sis 311 CrPC. On tns other hand, submlsslon of subsequent rnarriage between t| ut'ouflru in ev'iaence as ueTence evi aione is the pui'Dose. the petltionti evidence in that regard. He subl turned hostiie and therefore in inege for aiiowing the Detltioner to re-exatiine The prosecuuon has deci leauing qusstion has been asked. \.. q)l<fi?t-ti1i ^1+Kr^'^^^ <^i^i< ^siPtnsii^T inst ordor dstsd 5/10/2010 pglss©dbv 11l" in 6>ssstons i->ase 'iU4'uy wTiereuy ine in 311 CrPC has ueen reiected. ici vaiiuity ot tns oraer OT tne uourt Deiow, fe'ubtTiitteu that aftsr orosecuuix has been mamage oerween ine Denuoner ana heretore, under these eircumstances, it is ix. Learnea counsei Tor tne petitione!' IS intended tu exlend Tuiiest osDortuni'ty to tne petEtioner ss tacinci tnsi Tor sEseaea t;t(OH o^'o Er'C, tFi©COUu DulOW IH itieSe "aiiosi/ea peunoners appiicaiion unaer tieciion OT iearnecs otate counsei is ts'iat u'ie fact ne Detitioner and the prosecutrix couiu be |dence is yet to be teu and therefore if that is aiways al iiuerty to ieaci appropnate Tiitteci tnat tne prosecutiTX ornerwise nas circurnsiances, tnere is nu iustincauon ine prosecytnx. ine Drosecuirix rrorn ine appitcaiion unae!' oecuon o'i i c(t'ea ine Drosecuirix nosiiie any cerEa'i ['Ift^^fe^ ^SSSSg /^"^ XI^iC-22 ^s-. ^'' ^"•(^'L-'..^ an^r^ir f'W'V 311^1 ^H '•t-ffsfl 's^ 'ttMWV, «Tt1^'is, r»i<liiy'i< 3TI^?T 'IRR? ...df.^ WIR'IT SRWqi^...^^^.^l^ 1 sn^i'reiiWHfCT ijrh'c ii appears tnai ine petiuoner 27/04/2010. in para 2 of the appiic examinauon. sorne imponani uuesqons upon DSing inquireci, iearne) the defence of thS Detitioner has n4>t appropriais'to g*ye iiberty to the pe^ Taciurn OT'ine "'mamage. t aKing inio consiaeraiion in^ inis uourt. no iiiegaiity appears tu n| reiectinu ine aDDiication OT tne oetitj nts petitiori is finaiiy disposed ofi. 'bWid^l-t IWcfl"? fe^ <["lt$l< ^TsiPtiHan^r eiairns to have married the prosecutrix on uion, ine apDiicani says inai aunnu cross- couia noi oe asKeu. o counsei lur the petitloner aurnitteu that iaeen ui'ouuni. ifinai oe so, re vi/ouiu oe itioner to leau eviuence 'wtui regard to the TOiaiiry cn cireurnstanceSi in ine opiiiion 01 a'v'e been eornmjtteu by the Court below in onei'. wiin me iiuerrv' as uDservea auove, Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^ifeq