Ii!ii>,. ^%^s^^^, ^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER COMPLAINANT RESPONDENT ACCUSED PERSON CR.M.P. No.175/2009 Bhesh Kuniar Sahu, S/o Shri Jivau Lal Sahu, aged about 36 years, R/o Nayapara, Balod, Talisil Balod, District- Durga(C.G.). VERSUS Gulam MohamTnad Khan S/o Not Known, aged about 40 years, Head Constable No. 163 presen.Uy posted at- PoUce Station Devri, Distrcit Durg SC.G.). PETITION U/S 482 OF THE CODE OF CMMINAL PROCEDURE. :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:-, Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL- ORDER (Passedou 05/11/2009) 1. This is petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the code') for quashment of the order dated 22/12/08 in criminal revision No. 22/2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod District Durg affirming the order dated 11/8/2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod, District Durg in unregistered complaint. 2. The quashment is prayed on the ground that present complainant has adduced sufficient material for taking cognizance against the respondent but court below has failed to take cognizance and thereby committed an illegality warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 3, Leamed counsel for the petitioner are heard. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that present petitioner has lodged the report before Police Station, Balod written by the respondent on 30/11/05 in Rojnamacha and on the basis of inquiry First Information Report in crime N0. 328/05 has been registered against the 4 persons but with a view to save the accused persons from heinous offence, present respondent who is a public servant and was working as ^ A ^i <f 7. - ^- a Head Constable at Police Station Balod has deliberately interpolated the words fe-T ullll, by words PR u[HT. Present petitioner has made the complaint before the Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police has made an inquiry and after inquiry offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code has been added in final charge sheet. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits that act cominitted by the respondent is punishable under Sections 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code but court below have failed to take cognizance of the same. Petition, copy of First Information Report, Copy of Rojanamacha, copy of complaint, copy qf the statement of the complainant recorded in complaint case, copy of report of City Superintendent of Police (dated 30/3/03), copy of the final charge sheet and record of the court below perused. It reveals from the Rojanamacha dated 30/11/05 that 4 accused persons residing in same vicinity had assaulted the petitioner and during the course of incident one mobile and Rs. 100/- fall down in the floor. The petitioner was sent for medical examinafion, inquiry was conducted and finally First Infonnation Report for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294 8s 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Present petitioner made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, matter was inquired by City Superintendent of Police and submitted the report dated 5/2/07 in which it has been mentioned that present respondent has recorded the Rojanamacha on the basis of information given by the petitioner but finally copy of the charge sheet reveals that on the basis of subsenquent statement of the petitioner charge sheet also relating to the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code has been filed against the accused persons. Much stress have been given by the counsel for the petitioner on the words PR ufl-11 written in Rojanainacha and submits that originally respondent had written the words [wi ull'fl, but with a view to save the •y"l... ~'w^ g/^^t,. "^ ^ c^ -/\~-''-:^^y accused persons from serious offence respondent has changed the words fu*1 ull-11 into PT? uFT*TT, Complainant/petitioner has examined himself as a witness in which he has deposed that accused persons assaulted him snatehed Rs. 100/- and Mobile but in his detail statement he has not stated that out of 4 persons who has snatehed the mobile, accused were not unknown to the complainant/petitioner and they are residing in the same vicinity, detail inquiry has' been made by the City Superintendent of Police Rajhara, and submitted report that respondent recorded the Rojanamacha on the basis of information given by the petitioner. In absence of any evidence to show that respondent has interpolated the word fe-T ull-11 and changed the saine into Pl'i utlll and specially on the basis of statement of the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod that he himself is not in a position to say who has snatehed the mobile and Rs. 100/-, trial oourt has rightly dismissed the complaint and revisional court has rightly affirmed the order of dismissal the complaint, Consequently, present petition is without substance is Uable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge