@ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. APPLICANT KESHLAL Age about 12 years Through Guardian Tularam Gond g (L S/O I 7’ n' ’e ’v’lgHaRT‘T R/o Q( §ram M‘oondgaon P.S. Chichola Tah. Dongargarh Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS NON APPLICANT BHARAT‘ Age about 35 years S/o Shri Gajaraj Nai R/o Gram Moondgaon P.S. Chichola Tah. Dongargarh Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) / f/’ PROCEDURE APPLICATION U/s 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL _ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : EMSPUR ‘ APPLIQATION UNDER SEcTlQN 482 or THE coag OF cRIMImxL PRocEQUIag resen Sh R Kumar Gupt counselforthe appan Sh J hann cousel for t spn ‘ (Passed on 19m of teme, 0 This petition as been flied y the appiicant aggrieve y tder h b d b a dad 31/3i99 assed in criminal revision .118i93 b whic tha , te p No y h revisional Court ha's affirmed the order dated 22IO7I§8 pass by the ed Maistrate reectin applicant’s applicion for grant o maintenance on he g jg at f t pleading that the appiicant was born out of the psiooi relatnsetwee hy iorbn the non-applicant — Bharat and Ratni, in respect of which! Ratni has todged a report alieging commission of offence under $ection 376 IPC upon which r r Bharat was subjected to trial which howevef resulted in his ecquittati tt was pleaded that Bharat has accepted in Panchayat proceedings that the appticant was born out of the relations between the respondent and Ratni. \ \l 2 ln reply, the non-applicant denied the allegations and also denied \ \that he had any physrcal reiatlon With Ratni out of which the applicant was \ $ingie Bench: Honble Shri Manindra Mohan $hriVgsisava, J. ,Pt - n aj a hct n K Sa n he reudent ORAL ORBER Sepbr 7211) r \ Cr.M.P. No.711’07 APPLECANT Keshial Versus NON-APPLICANT Bharat 2 @ . born. After the parties ted their evidence teamed Maaistrae passed an H order dated 22iO7/9& remetmg application On revusuon being filed the,» , revrsronal Court has also dismissed the revision affirming the order passed: t _ by the Magistrate 3. Learned counset for the apnlicant contended that the Courts beiow , have committed illegality in drawmq adverse inference on the ground that: Ratm examined herself oniy In part and that she thereafter are net appear - to depose before the Court. He submits that as Ratni,’ who gave birth t9 v: the applicant was of unsound mind, her non-examination cguid not ieag f0 . ‘ such inference. The learned revrsronai Court has recorded fndrng that m the f; absence of there being evrdence on recerd to establish that Ratni was sufferrng from any iegai disability or of unsound mind, itzcanrvotv be accepted that she was incapabie of giving evidence before ItheCouri of law, The finding which has been recorded; does not appeare ix) be ifiegai or contrary to the legai principies in the matter of competence of a witnes’sii‘ I V Learned counsel for the appiicant coufd not establish that any cogent evidence was placed on record to show thatRatni was either‘of unsound » mind or suffering from any iegai disability. 4. The other submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that even though there is abundance of evidence on record to show that non- applicant admitted in Panchayat proceedings that the applicant was bom documents (Exhibit P/1 and P/2), the Courts belew committed serious :: illegality in exercise of jurisdiction, in coming to the eonclusion thatvthe l . applicant failed to prove his parentage. 5. True it is that two documents purporting tothe agreementsexecuted v u by the non-applicant were produced in evidence marked as Exhitait Pit and ' Exhibit Pf2, however, the leamed Magistrate as aiso the revisions! Court > have disbelieved the same as proof of free consentgiven- by the non-g applicant or admission on his part recording parentageln order tocome to the conclusion, the Courts below havetaken into consideration the” evidence led by the non-applicant namely Rameshwar (NAW 2), who has g I stated that the non-applicant was pressurized to accept the parentage of the applicant. The Court below have aiso taken into consideration that except this document, no other certihcate like birth certificate or "Ka‘twfan'v ‘ pustak have been produced in evidence to prove this fact. 3, 6. Though before this Court, birth certificate has now been piacle'duthe I same was never placed before the Courts beiow. Therefore, tam not ‘ 7 inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts beiow on the basis of the certificate which has now been placed before this Court. it has g r g to be bome in ‘mind that proceedings'under Section 125 CrPC are V summary in nature and they do not tinaiiy decide the civii rights of the parties. The Magistrate elaborateiy recorded evidence and has given l 1 detailed finding white rejecting application, which is supported by evidence l on record and conclusions drawn which cannot be said to be perverse or l l @ so outrageous, so as to warrant interference by ; powers under Section 432 CrPC. 7. in the resuit, i do not find any merit in this petition, therefore dismissed. ‘xr, r Sdl— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava RH r Judge i” this Court in exercise of The petitign is, hi: 7