No. $51” OF 2011 Cr.M.P. Applicants 2. Nityanand, S/o Ramchandra Gupta aged about 65 year, \. P R Na .............................. .. ... 3. Dulamani, S/o Ramchandra Gupta Preseaiaxz by i”: 2?éea§...... / Z 1 4. Chandan Singh, S/o Mainsingh Sidar aged about 5O year, aged about 58 year, y~ Maw“ A11 R/ o Village —Ektaal, Tah. Distt. Raigarh (C. G.) VERSUS Respondent : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Thana— Raigarh, Distt— Raigarh (C.G.) Complainants 2. Munuram Patel, S/o Sabhuram Patel Aged about 6O year President Shri Jagannath Mandir SeWa Samiti, Village‘Ektaal, Distt. Raigarh 3. Shrawan Kumar Hota, S/o Kalachand Aged about 57 year, Secretary, Shri— Jagannath Mandir Sewa Sarniti, Village—Ektaal, Distt. Raigarh - APPLICATION U/S 48fOF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 $ This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 15/07/ 11 by which, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered offences under Sections- 420, 463, 464, l 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. against the petitioners and issued Summons . petitioners contended that the allegations in the complaint a also in the preliminary statement of the complainant’s Witnesses t at the will was a forged one and does not contain the thumb impre sion of the deceased Thatu Milda is inherently improbable and Learned counsel for based on any material. He submits that after the complaint was led and complainant’s witnesses were examined, learned Magistrate ound that no case for offence is made out and the case appears to b of civil nature. Thereafter, the matter was taken in revision and v e order dated 15th April, 2011, the revisional Court set aside the order of the Magistrate and remanded the case for prop r consideration and, thereafter, the learned Magistrate has reg stered the alleged offence without properly examining the mater a1 on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pe itioner No. 1 had moved an application before the Tahsildar for mutation and the Tahsildar e n f XI-H€-78 . .. ................................. m .y H». g 6 / / “N5" $ql$ 200 3.11%?! 311W H211 mamW mm (Wu) mm afE‘'am WW1m % §€1 1m % sfm 3mm : on e r1 amn ra o 15. 12.20 1 1 Shri Sanjay Agarwal, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1, J, on advance copy. XI-HE—73 W31 amwfaaw ammwria; Wm m 2oo mm (Wu) Wmm registered a Revenue Case N evidence, the name of the p‘ revenue records. The respon before the Sub Divisional Offic‘ by the Tahsildar. However, the It is found that earlier t. the complaint against which I Court Vide its order dated 1 record the WWW §Q1W $31‘Emanéw (Qy 3. 1/A-6/2008—09 and after taking etitioner No.1 was mutated in the lent -Complainant filed an appeal :r, Raigarh, against the order passed same was dismissed. '1e learned Magistrate had dismissed evision was filed. Learned revisional 5/04/11 examined the material on of the :arned revisional court also held that i1 dispute is pending, the complaint qa-facie case disclosing ingredients of the case was remanded, learned Magistrate has passed a detailed order and has registered offence, After going through the complaint,‘which is also placed on record, I find that there are allegations the allegations are to be believc at this stage, no conclusion including com} complainant’s witnesses. The 1‘ only on the ground that a civ could not he dismissed if a prir offence is made out. After )lainant and statements regarding will being forged. Whether ‘d or not, it is a matter of enquiry and way or other, can be drawn. The State ‘of Haryana and Ors. Vs. (1) SCC 335] held that the power'of g should be exercised very sparingly at too in the rarest of rare cases. said decision the Supreme Court has es, under which interference under y be permissible ‘under the law. if the com laint is looked into, it is e Supreme Court in the case Bhajan Lal 85 Ors.[ 1992 Sup quashing a criminal proceedi and with circumspection and t In paragraph—102 of the also laid down the circums Section 482 of the CrP l C t f c a XI-HC—78 WWW K Hmmwria? Wm wt zoo mm (Wu) Wwm V 3f difficult for this Court to hol i that even E the allegations made therein are taken as it is and accepted in its entirety, offence alleged are not 'besrrriéde out. Merely because a civil suit is pending between the parties,“ that by itself coulc not be made be a basis to hold that the allegations in the compla absurd as to call for interferenc The learned Magistrate h e consideration order passed'by the Revisional Court has registered offence. Order cannot be said to be non-speaking. At this stage, ti Whether a prima—facie case is by the learned Magistrate. In this View of the matt r, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. Before parting with the case, it has to be observed that the observations made by this WWW§fgétFm *aimalw int are inherently improbable or so :e by this Court. and then after taking into th as considered the material on record, C. is made out. The trial court shall erits and the evidence available on record without being influenc d by the observations made by this Court. With the aforesaid obse ations, the petition is finally disposed of. ourt hereinabove are made for the limited purposes of examining as to whether a case for interference under Section-482 of the Cr. decide the case on its own Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 1e Magistrate is only required to see ade out or not, which has been done