HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR Cr.Bff.P.No.205of2011 PetiSioners Applicant No.1 Appiicant No.3 Appiteant No.4 ResDondent 1. Dani Prakash MishraS/o Shri Govind Prasad Mishra, Aged about 30 years R/o VHiage Sahaj'pur Lohara, Disrict Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Vrindna Mishra W/o Govind Prasad Mishra, aged about 67 years R/o Viiiage Sahajpur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. Pushpa Bai W/o Devkumar Chaubey, Aged about 49 years R/o VHSage Sahajpur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Versiss Rajeshwari Bai D/o Madhusudhan Pathak, aged about 26 years R/o Viiiage Saiik Jhitiya, P.S. Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Pstition undsr Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Dr.N.K.Shulda, Senior Advocate with ?^!r.V.P.Singh, couns®!for the peiitioners. ORDERtORAL.) (Passed on 11tn April, 2011) 1. Hsard on i.A.No.02 for taking additional documents on record. 2. On due consideration, i.A.No.02 is aiiowed. Documents ars takan on record. 3. By this pstition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.0., the pstitioners havs chaiienged iegality and propriety ofthe ordsr datsd 18.3.2011 passed by the Additlonai Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon in Criminai Revision No.26/2009, affirming ihe order dated 23.6.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Ctass, Rajnandgaon sn Criminai Case No.1111/2009, whereby learned Judiciai Magistrate Rrst Ciass has aiso taken cognizance and issued process against the peUtioners and one Banti (since deceased). 4. i have heard iearned counsef for the petitioners, perused the order impugned and other documents fiied on behaif ofths pstittoners. ^^ z -z- 5. Learned counssi for the petitioners submits that whiie quashing crimsRai procesdings resaSing to thres accussd fha revisionai Court has afflrmed the ordsr of the triai Court reiating to the aforesaid peSitioners and thereby committed iiiegaiity. Evsn as per ordsr impugnsd and siatenwnt of ths compiainant, the present pstitioners have commstted the offencs within the territoria! jurisdiction of the Court situatod at Kawardha and noi within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court situated at Rajnandgaon, thsrefore, ihe Court situated at Rajnandgaon is not having jurisdiction to try the aforesaid offence. 6. From perusal of the order impugned, tt reveais that on S.9.2W6 the prssent petitioners have committed thepart of offsnce at Lohara, withiR the tsrritoria! jurisdiction of the Court situated at Kawardha and anather accused has committsd the part of offence at Basantpur, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court situated at Rajnandgaon. On 15.4.: on the aforesaid ground the revisionai Court has affirmsd th®order reiating to the pressnt petitioners. 7. White affirming the order reiating to the present petitioners, tha revissonai Court has not committed any iiiegality. Continuancs of criminal proceedings bsfore the tria! Court wouid not ba abuse of process of the Court. 8. Consequently, S do not find any scope for interference in exereiss of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petition is iiable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismtssed. 9. I.A.No.01 is dismissed summarily. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge