HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR. M.P. No. 76/2011 G.R. RAMESH KUMAR S/o Late Shri G. Radhakrishna Aged about 44 years, Employed as Development Officer (A), New India Assurance Company Ltd, Durg Branch. Residing at Plot NO. 75, Sundar Nagar (West), Kohka, BHILAI Tehsil 85 District Durg (Chhattisgrh). VERSUS Applicant 71 Respondents 1. Shri Shiv Pr‘akash‘ S/o Shri ’K.‘S. N‘air,“A‘ged ‘ about 46 yeiérsVR/o Qr. No. 17B; Street-07, Sector-10, BHI'LAI; Tehsil 85 District Durg (CG) 2. Smt. Alka Sharma, W/o Shri Rakesh Sharma, Aged about 47years, R/o MIG-134, Housing Board Colony, Padmanabhpur, DURG, (CG) Smt. B. Kamayani Bhuyanesh, W/o Shri Bhuvanesh, Aged about 45 years, R/o: J.A.l33, Street No. 28, Smriti Nagar, BHILAI, Tehsil 8r, District Durg (CG) 4. Smt. Elizabeth Mathew, W/o Shri Anil ’ Mathew, Aged about 47 years, Administrative Officer, Divisional Office N0. 2, The New India Assurance Co'. Ltd. LIC Building, Pandri, RAIPUR (CG) Smt. Rajshree‘Sharad Paul, W/o Shri Sharad Pal, Aged abOut 48 years, Administrative Officer, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. First Floor of Dena Bank Building, Nandini Road, Power House, BHILAI, Dt. Durg (CG) Smt. Ranjana Shrivastava, W/o Late Shri Rajesh Shrivastava, Aged about 44 years, Assistant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, DURG (CG) 7. Shri Lakhpati Borkar, S/o Shri Vanvas Ji Borkar, Aged about 48 years, Administrative Officer, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office No. l, Madina Building, Jail . Road, RAIPUR, (CG) 8. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Collector, DURG, (Chhattisgarh) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:— Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 8. Respondents No. 1 to 7 not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 21/02/2011) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 28/9/2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Durg District Durg (CG) in criminal revision’No. 108/2010 affirming the order -WV‘) dated 23/6/2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in c compliant case No. 482/2010 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has not taken cognizance against the present respondents while taking cognizance against other four accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 500 8a 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. B.P. Rao learned counsel for the petitioner 8L Ms. Sunita Jain learned P.L. for the State/respondent No.8 are heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have committed an’illegality by not taking cognizance on the basis of material adduced on behalf of the complainant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondentiNo. 8 opposed the petition. 5. Order impugned, copy of other documents and statement of petitioner recorded under Section 200 of the Code perused. 6. In Para-7 of statement of petitioner recorded under Section 200 of the Code, petitioner himself has deposed that some acQused persons have deposed against the present petitioner which reveals that petitioner himself is not having personal knowledge that who has deposed against himself. Considering the evidence of petitioner, trial Court as well as revisional Court have taken cognizance against only four accused persons against Whom petitioner has produced prima facie material. While proceeding against four persons and not taken any cognizance against the present. respondents, Courts below have not committed any illegality requiring any interference in exercise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 of the Code without any material. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. g 7. l. No. 01 is also dismissed. Sdl- T.P. Sharma Judge .A