y BEFORE THE HON'BLB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH IN THE MATTER OF Ajiplicants/Accysed Rersons ?^-^; 'y^ w^i- -^y '^^y Ci t) •M.P.No' ' " / 2010 1. Dr.Anil Henry, s/o Dr.Veru Heniy,Aged- 44years, R/o Cristian Hospital Mungeli. District- Bilaspur (CG). 2. Dr. N.R.Samual, S/o Late Shri. F. Samuel Aged-43 years, R/o Cristian Hospital Mungeli. District- Bilaspur (CG) vs. Non-AppUcants (Complainant) Dr. Ashoke John, S/o Dr. L John , Aged about 45 years, R/o Heeralal Ward MungeU,Tehsil MungeU District Bilaspur CRIMINAL MISCILLANEOUS PETITION U/S 482 Cr.P.C AGAINST HIGHCOURTOFCHHAmSGARH^BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRI M^NINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J PETITIONERS RESPONDENT Cr.M.P No.416/2010 Dr. Anil Henry and another Versus Dr. Ashoke John (Petltion u/S_482 ofthe Cr.P.C.t Appearance: Shri Azad Siddique and Shri Pradeep Saxena, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, counsel for the respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 14.09.2010) Heard. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have called in question correctaiess and validity of the order dated 26th April, 2010, passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mungeli in Criminal Revision No.31/2009 to the extent the revisional Court has directed the Magistrate to consider the case with regard to framing of .tf^" charges on the basis of the available evidence on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the revisional Court came to the conclusion that it was beyond jurisdiction of the Magistrate to call for further evidence before considering as to whether the case for framing charges is made out or not, the learned revisional Court ought to have decided the case itself as to whether a case of framing of charge is made out or not, instead of remanding the case for consideration of the Magistrate in fhe matter of framing of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgmenf of Supreme Court in the case of K. Ramachandran Vs. V. N. Raian aad another1 fo buttress his submission that the revisional Court ought npt to have remanded the case to the Magistrate and itself decided the matter as to whether a case for framing of charge is made out or not. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the revisional Court was called upon to examine the correctness and validity of order dated 30th September, 2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, by which the Magistrate had directed further evidence to be recorded. Hii further submits that the Magistrate had not considered the availablc evidence on record nof had recorded any finding as to whether a case of framing of charge is made out or not. In his submission, the revisional Court only exaniined correctness and validity of the order of the Magistrate directing further evidence to be recorded and nothing more. Therefore, it is submitted, the revisional Court did not commit any illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrP.C. •-^" 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. It cannot be disputed that the jurisdiction of the revisional Court namely, Sessions Judge was invoked against the order dated 30th (2009) 14 SCC 569 -3- September, 2009 passed by the Magistrate by which the Magistrate had directed further evidence to be recorded before considering framing of charge. The revisional Court after exainining the matter, came to the conclusion that the Magistrate went beyond his jurisdiction in passing such an order and set aside order dated 30th September, 2009. The revisional Court remanded the case to the Magistrate to consider the available evidence on record in the light of the submissions made by counsel for the parties as to whether a case for framing charge is inade out or not. It also gave liberty to the trial Court to afford an opportunity to the parties. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of the Magistrate is neither illegal nor perverse nor results in any manifest injustice to either of the parties so as to warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. s It is not a case where the revision was preferred against a decision of the trial Court framing or refusing to frame charge by examining the available evidence on record. As the trial Court had no occasion to examine the available evidenee on record before framing charge, the order of the revisional Court remanding the case for consideration does not appear to be violadve of any provision contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely because the revisional Court granted liberty to pardes to make further oral arguments, in the opinion of this Court, it does not amount to any abuse of process of law nor any miscarriage ofjustice, on the other hand, it only advances the cause of justice as this will afford both the parties full opportunity to submit their arguments before the trial Court. Reliance placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of K. Ramchandran (supra) is completely misplaced. •^•'•sswe:^t^ ...^ ""' 'si3 .r -?' te.ratfi' Praveeni /\: - 4 - ^ In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court dealt with an entirely different issue. The same does not help the case of the petitioner. 7. In the result, I do not find any illegality in the order of the revisional Court. The petition is liable to be disraissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. .-—— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge