HIGH GOURT OF CHEATTISGARK AT BILASPUR 33 : HGN'BLE SHRI JUsTICE PRXTINKER DIWAKER CR.M.P. N0. 218]2009 Gagandip Singh, Sfo. Jagdish Singh, aged about 22 years, APPLICANTS 1. r] o. Main Road, P. $. Bishrampur, Distt. Surguja (CG) 2. Rakesh Yadav, Sjo. Shankar Yadav, aged about 22 yams, rfo. Minus Coiony, RS. Bishmmpur, Distt. Surguja Viswas, Sio. Tapan 3. R.N.Viswas, aged about 29 years, R/o. 13/67, SECL Colony, P.S.Bishmmpm, Digit. Smguja Rohit Singh. @ Sanny, S/o. Vijay Smgh, aged about 24 years, r/o. 1B} 173 Hospital 4. Colony, RS. Bishrampur, distt. $urguja Sanjiv Das, S/o. Munna Das, aged 'about 22 years, r/o. Talvapara, RS. Bishmmpur, Dist. Surguja 5. Ranjai Gin', Slo. Umesh Giri, aged about 25 years, r/o. Main Road, P.S. Bishrampur, Distt. ' Surguja Dharmendra Kumar, S/o. Shyam Bihari, aged about 25 years, r10. Minus Colony, RS. Bishmmpur,/Distt. Sulguja EsPONDENT State of (LG. Through RS. Bishmmpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) R APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF M CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 AEEearanc L’ Shn' G.S.Ahluwa}ia, counsel for thb applicants. Shn' Akhil Mishra, Dy. GxA. for the State. ORAL ORDER (19.06.2009) Challenge in the present Wlit petition is to the otder damd 25.3.2009 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge '(F’I‘C) Surajpur in S.’I‘. No. 69/ 2009 whemby charges have been med against the applicants for the o0hnccfs punishable under Sections 148,324,323 & 395 of the IPC and in alternate under Section 394/ 149 of the IPC. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the charges under Section 395._and* in alternate under Section 394/ 149 of the IPC cannot be named. He further contends that there is no material on recoxd to atn‘act the ingmdients or Section 395 'and 394/ 149 of the IPC, therefore, the charges under these Sections ought not to have been named. He also placed strong reliance on the Iepoxt of the Additional S.P. dated 24.3.2009 (Annexuxe A/4) and submits that the charge under Section 395 IPC cannot be named. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2009 (CI-“Law 822, Rukmini Naraekar Vs. Waya smdcar- & Others and submits that on the basis of this judgment it is clear that present is a case where the High Court should interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C‘ and should quash the order of haming of charge. / On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that horn a bare reading of the FIR, the ingredients of Section 395 {PC are attractedvand that apart, the medical report of Rajesh Jain and Révindra Jha, who have sustained incised wounds also makes it clear that the court below is fully justmed in mming the charges under Section 395 of the IPC. He further submits that even in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also, there is su&cient material to pmve prima facie involvement of the applicants and under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this court cannot interfere. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Conn repmed in 2009(4) sec 439, Makes); Choudhary Vs. state of Rajastnan and submits that the court has hxed the guidelines as to in What manner the High Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. p l have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. A bare perusal of the FIR, medical report and the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that prima facie the case under Section 395 8a in alternate 394/ 149 of the IPC is made out against the applicants. The petition has no substance and the same is accordingly, dismissed at the mongstgggsem , Stil- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ! i. i i