HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 131 of 2009 PBTITIONBR RESPONDBNT Deepak Mittal S/o. Subhashchandra Mittal, aged about 35 years, R/o New Market Rajhara, P.S. Rajhara, Distt. Durg Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through: P.S. Rajhara Distt. Durg (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SBCTION 482 OF THE CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURB Appeasraace : Shri Pushpendra Kuniar Patel, couusel for flie petitioner. Shri Saiideep Yadav, Govt Advocate, forfhe State. ORALORDER (16.03.2009) SUNILMUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. Tlie petitioner is aa accused persou of Crixnuial Case No. 474/2008 pendiag ta tlie Court of Jiidicial Magisti'ate First Class, Balod. The Magistrate had frajned charges u/ss 294, 325 & 352 of IPC vide order dated 18.9.2008 again.st tlie petitioner aad aiiother co- accused person nainely M.B. Fraiicis. Benig aggrieved witli flie aforesaid order, tliey filed Criinitial Revision No. 24/2008 before tiie Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, who dismissed tlie said ci±aiiaal revisiou by ioipugued order dated 27.1.2009. It is after tliis, ftie present petition, u/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed. In sum aad substance, ttiis petitiou is filed for quashment of cliai'ges fraiiied agahist the present petitiouer u/s 294, 325 & 352 IPC. \ I have perused tlie records filed along with flie petition, a^ Cr.M.P. No. 131 of2009 After perusal ofthe First Information Report aiid oflier records, a priaia facie case is laade out agaiast the petitioner under tiie aforemeiitioned Sections of IPC aad I do not find aiiy iUegatity in fraxiiuig of charges under ttie said Sections ofI.P.C. In tlie matter of Om. Wati fSnitl and Anather Vs. State^ thrQugh Delhi Adm.n. and others, (2001) 4 Supresne C^urt Cases 333, relviag Uie judgment rendered m fhe matter of KanU Bhajdra Shah Vs. State ofW.B. fSOOO) 1 SCC 722, the Apex Court held that it is tiie statutoty obUgation of tiie High Court not to uiferfere at tlie iaitial stage offraniiiig the chai'ges merely on hypofhesis, imagiiiation aiid fai'-fetched reasons which ia law amount to isiterdictuig the trial agaiast tiie accused persons, Self'-resti'aiiit 011 tiie pail of the High Court. should be tlie rule unless tiiere is a glaiio.g iajustice stailiig the court ui ttie face, Unscrupulous litigaats should be discouraged from protractiiig fhe trial aiid preventing culniiaation of tlie ciioiixial cases by havin.g resort to uncaUed-for and unjustified litigation uiider the cloak of technicalities of law. In tlie facts aiid cii'cumstaiices of ttie case, I do not fiiid aay reason to uiterfere witii the orders passed by tlie trial Court as also tlie revisional Couil. The petition has no laerits. The sanie is liable to be disniissed, and is ac/cordiiigly dismissed, at tlie inotiou stage itsetf. \ Sd/- I SunaKumarSinha Judge vatti