RB8POKDBHT8: Varswi 1. 2. HIOH COURTOF CHHATTOSGARH AT BU«ASFUR , QcM^.Vo. ITO/ll' .,.,.-. ....„,.:...:.' '^ PKnTWStBXti ASHIM KXJRRE. S/0 S.P. KURRB, A/A 38 ycars, R/or VIDYA^ UP NAGAR, mLASPUR, TAHSIL AND; DISTRICT BILASPUR (C.G^. ; STATE OF CHEHAmSGyVRH, THROUGH STATION INCHARGB, POUCE STATION CTVIL UNES, BILASPUR (C.a). MANOJ BERIWAL, S/O Sg*ARAM BERIWAL, R/0 SHRI RAM TOWERS, BLOCK A, THIRD FLOOR, VUffiAR VIHAR, BILASPUR (C.G.). , PETFnON UNDBR 8BCTION 482 OF TBDB <3RnDNAL VWXSSmS. CODE. 1973. (SB sHon'bte Ibr. T.P^hanna,J.) , Present:- Mr. Am-uneh Sbrivastasa, Advocate ftM' (hfi petitumef. Ms. SunitaJaia, P.L. forthe State/respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 not noticed. ORAL-C»Dai (PasMdoa 29/03/W11) 1. By fhis petition imdcr Sectfon 482 of the Code of Crimfaial Prooed'are, 1973, (ia short the CoSef petitioncr has chaUei%cd fhe legality aad , propriely of ttie order dated 18/2/2011 passcd by Pirat Additioiial Sessions Judge, Bilaspiu- (C.O.) to criminal revision No. 152/10 afflraaing the order takmg cogiiizance dated 17/9/10 passcd by Chief Judidal Ms^isteate, Bilaspur in criminal complaint case No, 2192/10 whBxeby on fhe toasis of poUce report recewed in compliance of order/duiection passed under Section 156 (3) of the Code police has filed cbaacge sheet and Court has taken coyaxaaa.cc on fhe basis ofchai^e sheet ^9; Learacd eouns?! ftw fhe pettttoner -wAemenffet axgued that asn per agreement exeeuted betwccn parties dispute is purety ctefl ia aature atul same is iiot subjectDiatter fia- (hc camnuteatoa of (rffeaceaieven ofhersnsc; MagHtrate has nQt followed taaudatcay procednae ptescAed undw Chapter -XV ofthe Code fherefoie oxder talda®coyaxisaace and Issuanee af process to pTesent petitioner is bad in law. , Learaed counsel for fhe petttioner placcd reBance in flie xaatteE of HATIOIIAL MOAU. mPUSTmES CtMtPORATKMI LTD. V. STA'EB flK!« < DBUHU <» OR8.1 m wbieh Supremc Court has hdd fhat Maj^steate proceeded under Chcpatei> XV of (he Code is bound to foBow pt«scafted proceduic under Chapta- - XV of the Code and boui^ to Bcccu'd-the statement of fhe comptemant unless thc cffimplamt te made by pubMc servant la. official eapacity. Learued counsel for the petitioner further placcd veBamx in the xnatter of SABITHA RAMABIUKTHY AITO AIIOTHBR v. R^.8. CaiANa^kA&&VARADHyAa in whteh Supremc Oourt lias held fhrt ia absence ofany stateiaeat ofthe complainant agaiast fhe accuscd rclatiag to commisslon ofoffiince, taking cognizance oftte ofience and issuaacc of process is not pennissiblc. On fhe ofher hand, leamed counsd fiw the State/respondeiit No. ). opposed fhe pctiMon. Order mqpugaed, copy of agreement, copy of tfae oider sheeta aad copy of tihie stateaaent teconled 4uring tavesygatioa perused. 'AIR 2009 SC 1284 2 (2006) 10 SCG 581 ^^^^-.^. ~'"<!s\ / / ^S. '-S- .:£>-; '.^ v"^ ';s^^<i'1 < As per aforesaid dociMnents present petitiMier, is not a owacr Qffti^.land aduieasiuing area 40 Acers but has entcred iatoagFeeinentm.th rcspondent No. 2 alon^; with one Sanject Singh Wadhwa for seBing fhe kuid to respondent No. 2 in fhe year -2006 aad has obtsuned Rs. 18 LaKh which has been deposited in tfae account of Sanpet Sii^h Wadtawa. Thereafter fhey have not produced fhe scUer to execute fhe sale deed fiiialfy coiaplaiatwas filed by fhe respoiideat No. 2 before fhe Court below. In stead of taldng cogruzaacc and ptncecdmg uader Chapter- XV af&e' Code Coiut below has directed for investigatioa iu accordaaace w^h; Scction 156 (3) of the Code on fhe ground fhat oopy of fhe complaint prinaa fiuae discloses the comBatesion ofeogDJzanceoflTence. After tnvcstiga-Boa pdBce has filed cbarge sheet/fiixal report. On the basis o£final «y>rttriat Ctotirt has tateen cognizaace against present petitioncr aad co-accased Saa^eet Singh Wadhwa subsequentty Saajeet Singh Wadlxwa las bcea aeq'uitted on the basis ofcoaiptOtnfee wifh respoadeat No. 2. As held in ease ofIIA'nOHAL 8NMUA in^ISTiaBB OORPORATIOa fcTD. & SABI'TOA lUUKAMXIR'niY ABD ANOTHBR (SupnQ airi setfled tew Magistrate taking cognizattce is tooiuad to proceed under CShapter- XW'trf fhc Code aad is required to cxaBune fhe complatoant utKlerSeeti(»i200of fhe Code. Atter exanttmation of the complmaaat it may diacretioa^y for fhe Magistrate to ducct the police for mvestigatfon ia teaaas ofSeetafm 2M! offhe Code. Rrovisions coatauued in Section 156 (3) ofthc Code is distiatA provisions aiid before taking cogttizance and procecdmg uiider Chapter- XV of thc Code, Magistrate is also competent to order fur mvestigErtion of cognizable offence. Bofh are distinct provisions and Magtettate is T"-'-"'i*iKf>*i 3 9. competent to direct poUce. for invest^tation of cognizatok offence witfaout takiag cognizance and procceding under Chapter- XV ©ffhe Code. ^r adoptiag such piocedure trial Gourt has not coaunttted aay .iBegpMly and revisional Court tias also not coiiumtted aay iQegaMty. Ido iiot fitid ai%' ground for interference iu exexoise of exteaordtoaiy iaherMit juriadiction. Consequentty, petition is liabte to bc diesaussed and is heEebydism^cd. , I.A, Nos. 01 Si 02 isalso dismisscd. T.P. Sharma Judge <v