Sudhir Agrawai, S/o Shri amesh Chandra Agrawal, Aged about 40 yrs, Publisher, Dainik Bhaskar, R/o Dwarka Bhavan, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) Versus - 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Tansykh Soni, S/o Shri Gopilal, Aged about 65 years, R/o Kilapara, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) {Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure} Present: Mr. Adil Minhaj & Mr. Kunal Das, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel awyer for the State/respondent No.1. ’ ORAL ORDER (22-3-201 1) Se 1. By this petition under ction 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-7—2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgao in Criminal Case No.841/2005, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Cla has declared the petitione S d C. 2. i have heard learned counsel for th parties, perused the order impugned an copies of order sheets. 3. As per copies of order sheets, criminal complaint case against the petitioner and other accused persons is pending since 201-99 and regularly, process has been issued against th petitioner, but process has not been rved upon th petitioner on the ground that he is not available at the time of service of process. Considering te reguar attempt of service since last eight years, th trial Court has passed the aforesaid ‘order. The trial Court has passed the ordr in absence of the ss r absconding under ection 299 of the CrPC and has proceeded uner Sections 82 & 83 ofthe CrP HIGH COURT OF ,CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.1 32 of 2008 APPLICANT: R NONAPPLICANT: L Singie Bench: Honble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J n e d -1 e se e h l e ex e 2 petitioner. Instead of appearing before the trial Court, and complying the order and cooperating in trial, the petitioner has chosen to file petition 'under Section 482 of the CrPC. By passing the order impugned, the trial Court has not committed any illegality. Virtually, no option except to pass such order was left to the Court. Consequently, l do not find any ground for interference in exercise of extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, in limine. l.A.No.1 for stay stands disposed of.