IN THE HON'BLE HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICAN: VERSUS NON-APPLICANT C.R.M.P....lf....,^C>6-^7 KESHLAL Age about 12 years Through Guardian Tularam Gond S/o Udalram Gond R/o Gram Moondgaon P.S. Chichola Tah. Dongargarh Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) BHARAT Age about_35 years , S- S/o Shri^cy^^- NOU RYo Gram Moondgaon P.S. Chichola Tah. Dongargarh Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) APPLICATION U/s THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR RESTORATION OF M.C.R.C. No. 3272/99 XI-HC-22 3'ET '^WW^, S'Tfl^'16, Rlc1iy^< IfTRcfTgWIW 3ll^l M^ch CX'h.P' ^o' ^ '^ m 2_c&^- 200 fc|<)og. sn^rw f^iRisn^r g;iiN?g1?c[ ail^l ^disilflf^r 31.01.2007 Shri Rcy Kumar Supta, cou^isel for the appiicant. None for the respondent. Hecrd. This js an appiication for r\ dismissed for want of prosecuti4 rendering judgment in the mattei^ Siyit kumar Rano reported in A1 as below ; of CrimincV Procedure. df 31. Jhe High Couif exercise its Ju^ Code fhus : "482. Swing Nothing in thi^ affect the make such ofde\ to any order /?) abuse of fhe p\ secure fhe end^ 32. From a bare provision. it power of the where an ord^f Court which is ends of Justic^ before a Court\ Court. It is, ^ Section 482 of 'hl'ilfrl'ifl.f K14f)Tfff3^1'<Rt't<ll< ^i3Tl^lT3T|^T pstorotion of M.Cr.C.No.3272/99 which was in on 23.08.2006. Hon'ble the Apex Court of Stote of West Bengal ond others. Vs [R 2004 SC 1851, in para 31 & 32 obser-ved cannot, thus, in such a sHucrtion isdiction under Sec'tion 482 of the The said provision reads inherent power of High Court — Code shall be deemed •to limit or inh^renf pcwers of the High Courf to ^w astnay be mcessary togive effect \ade under fhis Code, or to preveni ^ocess of any Court or otherwise to •ofjus-tice." perusal of ihe afore mentioned w^uld be eviden-t -thai the mherent \iigh Court is saved only in a case has been pcesed by the criminal fyquired to be set aside to secure ihe or where the proceeding pending amounts -to abuse of -the process of ^iere-fore, evideni- ihat power under the Code can be exercised by fhe courr in re/arwn ro a maller pendmg beise^ff^, <^1<9^ .,.SIS:.,tW:--li»S»i XI-HC-22 sn^rqir f^rwsii^r aiirwgf^r "4 v^ 'FSf •^WW'ti, ^tTly'16, (sfdltty 3<1^1 4^ch ^^g^..^...e... .-...^ „„, R'b<A sn^rgTtiTWfffer woufcl mean exerc^St Cauft; which i). procedurs power is Criminal Proce<^ire. Court had no under the /^cA exercising its Code o'i h the corrtext of Cods of Cr'insinal a criminal Couri' or whence a "djsed by the Courf undsr the Cods of Once it is heid thaf 1-he criminal p^wer to deal wifh fhe property seized the eyuestion of^ •the High Court s ' Jfirisdictton undsr Secfion 482 of fhe would not arise. f CriminSfl Procedure Section 482 dosS not bar been dismissed for ivant of pros^ ;ex Court in the case of (»S contdned in Section 482 of appiication afresh, instead filin^ appiicstion which was dismisse^d applicant, if so advised, may fil^ the CrP.C. as second opplication want of prosecution. Learned counsel for the ife[ the orders annexed slong with th| Considered. Certified copy of the orc( photocopy of the scme within 15 With the aforesaid direcl dismissed. Certifjed copy as per rule^. 'hi'^ti'i'Ti-i iiini'^fs^A'KK ^isri^iTsn^r filing of fresh application if earlier one hcs .cution. In view of !aw laid down by Hon b!e of West Bengal (supra) and provisions the Cr.P.C., applicant should have filed an application for restoration of earlier on 23.08.2006. It is directed that ; application afresh, under Section 482 of Q9ainst first dismissed on 23.08.2006 for ipplicant prays to return certified copy of s petition. [ers be returned to him on substitution by Uays from today. hion, the cpplicction (Cr.M.P.No.19/2007) 'is 4..;;1 i'.'.. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge !^"