te Bench HIGHCQURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.NO. t)^% /2011 y^.^9 M.A.Motwani, S/o A.H.Motwani Aged about 56 years, R/o.- H.N. 53 Sector 2 Gitanjali Society Sankar Nagar Raipur Occupation _ Police Inspector in Home l^.K"— " Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, ^iU--r' fi. *i^"- ^i_«sk/\/-jti^y*'*' p(esented ^ftl:'}.—--•"""at present posted at HP.H.Q.Raipur (C.G. o^--^^"' RESPONDENT: VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Shri Asme Kumar, S/o Shri Dukhit Ram Devangan, aged about 28 years, Rs/o Vitlage-Sukuldaihan, Police Stateion - Lalbag, District Rajnandgoan 3. Shri Ishwar Bhoutik, Constable No. 837 Police Line Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Shri Girish Deshmukh, Constable No. 837, Police Line Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5. Shri Sadaram Gadware, Constable No.837 Police Line Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^,.—^.——— PETITION UNDERSECTION 482 OF THE CRIMIANAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR QUASHING_ QLIHE_ORDER DATED 24-10-07 PASSED_B^_THE J.M.F.C. RAJNANDGAON IN CRIMINAL CASE N0. 419/2007 AND THE ORDER DATED 10-09-2010 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDmONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAJNANDGAONJN CRIMINAL REVISION N0. 42/2009. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Cr.M.P.No.628/2011 Petitioner Respondents M. A. Motwani Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Present:- Shri Dinesh Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23-09-2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to assail legality and validity of order dated 10-09-2010 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2009, by which, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order taking cognizance, has been dismissed, as not maintainable. 2. The respondent No.2-Shri Asme Kumar filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon. After perusing the complaint and the preliminary statement of the complainant witnesses, the Magistrate vide its order dated 24-10-2007 has taken cognizance of the complaint and registered offence under Section 294,323, 324, 348, 349, 167, 211, 469 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the respondents No.3 to 5. Though, a revision was preferred against the order taking cognizance and issuance of bailable warrant, the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision by holding that against the order taking cognizance and issuing summons, only remedy available to the petitioner by filing petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as neither the Magistrate can review its order nor the Revisional Court has power to interfere with the order taking cognizance. Swayed by the aforesaid view, the Revisional Court has further observed that there appears to be no error in the order passed by the trial "^:1;. .-^•^""^ ";^-.. t % s^^^sfc^ Court. This Court in the case of K. L. Patel vs. Hem Singh Rathiya and ors. (Cr.M.P.No.253 of 2011)dec\ded on 12-08-2011 has held that the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance and register offence and issuing summons cannot be said to be interlocutory in nature, and therefore, the bar under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. would not be attracted, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others vs. Uttam and another, AIR 1999 SC 1028, Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2009 (2) SCC 370 and Amar Nath vs. State ofHaryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137. 3. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the order passed by the learned Revisional Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order of the Revisional Court is therefore set aside and the case is remanded to the concerned Revisional Court to decide the revision on its own merits and in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Man ^ Sbri^stava ^•M5." \J-~