li;i| :1: Bl BIBJ ts^.1 f:!^l 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR KNO.154/2007 PETITIONBRS RBSPONDEHT 1, Brijbhau Das @ Munna, Age 34 years, s/o Lt. Mahesh Das 2. Sm.t. Mayavati, age 72 years w/o Lt. Maliesh Das 3. Sm.t. Anjaa Kimwar, ag& 70 years, w/o Lt. Mahesh Das 4. Ku. Vishwakuinari, ayp 30 years D/o Lt; Mahesh Das AB R/o Viils3ge Kartala, Thana Kartala, Distnct-Korba(CG) Versus State of Chliattisgarh, Through P.S.Thana Kartala, District- Korba(CG) Appearance: Dr. ShaUesh Ahuja, coiinsel tbr fhe petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Govenunent Advocate tbr ttie State on advaace copy. ORALORDBR (04.07.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. Tbis petition is directed ^amst fhe order dated 6.7.2006, passed in Griminal RevisionNo. 10/2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, whereby fhe said Court conflnned the order dated 28.3.2006, passedby fhe Judicial Magistrate Firat Class, Korba(CG) in Crimiual Case No.396/2004, by wbich the said Court had fi-amed fttec:tlalges under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC agaiast allfhe petitioners/ accused persons. The brieffacts are that QU a coniplaint beiug made by fhe wife of petitioner No.l iiamely-Smt. LaUta, crune No.75/2003 was registered ia fhe coxiceEned Police Station linder Sectfon 498-A'read wifh Section 34 IPC. When fhe charge sheet was filed, the Magistrate fi-aiued charges uiider Section 498-A risad wtth Sectioli 34 IPC agamst aU fhe accused persons, wtuch was Cr.M.P.No.154/2007 IIIHi.;:^ Ss 'v. .<-- ^ sunlta chaUenged by theia before fhe Revisional Court aud fhe Revisional Gourt disinissed fheir revision against which, ttus petition has been filed. Leam.ed counsel for fhe petitioners ai^ues that fhere is no prima/acie matenal against fhe petitioners to fi-aine chax^es uaderfhe aforesaid Section ofIPC. I have gone fHrough fhe copy of F.I.R, as also fhe statement of fhe victim. recorded uuder Section 161 Cr.P.C. In bofh the documents, fhere are aUegations against atl the accused persons regardiag treatmg the coinplamant/victim wifh cnielty and on>~the basis of fhis material, fhe trial Court had framed fhe chai^es under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, whichvtfas conBrmed by the Revisional Court. After going •through the above docuiuents, I do not fiitd auy reasou to iaterfere in fhe orders passed by the 2 Courts below. The petition has no luerits, The saine is not worfh adinission and is disinissed at fhe inotion sta^e itselt'. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ! Js iliiHI