BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^'s\ C. R, M.P. No. /^1 1 / 2010 SlnilteBench PETITIONER : CQMPLAINANT Bholeshwar Singh Sahu , S/o Late Shri Sawantram Sahu .\o%^0.-.-;"^ ^?^?/^^tc4^Y.e?r^ >^°^^^^ ,..-'-;"^?^^;" ^-^"- ^ ^^':1^ .A Du^ C-G- ^^.-•-"'"^^'y ^\>' VERSUS R/o VillageSohpur, P.0. Nipani, Thana and Tehsil Gurur, District RESPONDENT: ACCUSED Chhannulal Sahu, S/o Raruha Sahu, Aged about 42 years, R/o Village Sohpur, P.0. Nipani, Thana and Tehsil Gurur, District Durg, C.G. APPLICATION U/S 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PRO^EDURE 1973. '^•SfS^ ^ HZ6H CGURT OF ,T- Single Bench : Honbie Mr. Justlce Prit.inker DiwcKer Cr.M..P. No. 299 of 20K ice Complainant •hoieshwar Sinah Sahu Chhcnnu ol 5<xhu Shri N.K. Chatterjee, counse! for the petitioner. PETETION UNDEft SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF_CRiy EbURF ^B 'V^ 'Q. Present petition fijed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the 'mpugned order dorted 1.2.2010 by AdditiorsG! Sessions Judge (F.T,C.), talod, Distr'ict Durq in Cr'imina! Revision No. 34/2008 whereby dismissing the rsvislon as flled by the petitioner, jeorned revisiona! Court bejow has sff'rmed th.s order dc+ed 4.12.2008 passed by Jud'cial Magistro.te, First Cjass, Ba.Jod rsfusing to register the case against the respondsnt o.nd di-smissing the comp!o.int case. 2. It appears from the documents as filed by the petitioner that on 22.09.2008 a compiaint case was filed by him against the respondent a!!eging m it that the responde.nt ho.s committed the offence under Ssctions 436 c.nd 427 of the Indian Pend Code. It is aiieged by the complainant that on 13.4.2008 the respQndertt has set fire the five o.cres crop of Gram cmd has cGused loss of Rs-1,90,000/-. i iT""'y s J^ ^ '^..^s^/' ta, 3. In support of its co.se, the complainant got recorded his own statement and the statements of Sokulram, ©ulobSingh. Triiokpam. 4. After considerlng the mate"!Gi as adduced by the petitioner, the learnsd Mcgistrcte has dismissed the complciint on 4.12.2008. It has been observed by '[earr'ed Magistrate fhat there is inconsisteney in the statement of the witnesses of the complojnant snd it is not cleor from the so.n'i®that it is the respondent who set fire his crop. Learned M.agistrats has further observed tho.t there appears to be previous ennRity between the porties. Court below has considered the report of the poiice in which it h.as come that the fire incident took piace because of the eiectricity. In ths revision also, the Revisiona! Court has eiaborateiy considered the entire evidencs ond has come to the conclusion that the compio.ino.nt ho.s fo.iied to e-stabilsh its case and therefore. no interference can be cailed for. 5. I have heord counse! for the petitioner and perused the materiai avo.i'o.ble on record. 6. I find no reason to interfere. with the. wei! reasoned order passed by the Magistrate and th.at of Revisional CourS'. toth the courts below after due consideration of the eyidence has given the concurrent finding. The so.id finding is strictly in. accordancs with !aw and there is no infirmity ir' the same. Even otherwise in a petition under Sectlon 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no interference can be made in such type of coses. 7. The petition fails csnd is accordingly dismissed. ,,^___^——., Sd/- pritinker Judge