IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. 15 / 2011 ^ETLTIQNER Complainant Ramsuyas Pandey, Aged about 80 years, S/o Late Siddhmuni Pandey, R/o Tilda, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, ,4 ,»•• ^..••<" ^.•,-"'^~^'--'"' OT;>--;"CY^;'-""..,.. Through - Dista-ict Magistrate, Raipur, Distt.Raipur-(C.G.) 2. Ashok Sharma, Aged about 50 Years S/o Kalicharan Sharma, R/o Tilda, Tahsil -Jilda, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) PETITIONJUNDER SECTIQN 482:OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,J,973 l ,^r- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sin^Le Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava,J. Cr.M.P.No.815/2011 Appllcant Resppndents Ramsuyas Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another Petition undeiLSection 482 olthe^odej)f Cjlminal Procedyre -T^.'" Present- Shri Shrawan Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 02-12-2011) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. aggrieved by dismissal of revision vide order dated 16-09-201 1, by which, order dated-25-04-2011 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint has been affirmed. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tilda alleging that the respondent No.2 entered the premises of the complainant with weapdn and hurled abuses and threatened. The learned Magistrate called for a report from the Police and after examination of the complaint, the Police report and the statement of complainant'switnesses, dismissed the complaint. It was held that in respect of the same incident, a complaint was already filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, in which, a report was obtained from the Police and cpnsidering that the police had submitted a closure report, the complaint was closed vide order dated 27-09-2010. On revision preferred, the order ofthe Magistrate has been confirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier a complaint was filed before the Magistrate at Raipur, because at that time, the Police Station s^\ ''.''' %'s J^ -2 Nevra was within the territorial jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Raipur, but later on, the concerned Police Station was brought within the territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate at Tilda, where the complaint was flled, in which, the complainant examined it's witnesses and even though, case was made out, offence has not been registered and cognizance has been refused by dismissing the complaint only on the ground that the complaint earlier filed before the Magistrate at Raipur, had closed the complaint vide order dated 27-09-2010. Learned counsel submitted that the Magistrate at Tilda was bound to take cognizance once the ingredients of offence alleged are made out and the earlier order passed on 27-09-2010 by the Magistrate at Raipur does not come in the way and there was no legal impediment in taking cognizance. 4. It is not in dispute that in respect 6T the same allegation, the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, because at that time,1:he Police Station Nevra was within the territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate at Raip_ur.In that case, the Court had directed the Police to register offence and investigate the matter, invoking its powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. When the Police submitted closure report, the Magistrate closed the complaint ;ease though observing that the Magistrate shall separately deal with the closure report upon submission of case diary and it may or may not accept the closure report. Order dated 27-09-2010 passed by the Magistrate at Raipur in the complaint filed by the petitioner in respect of the same incident and allegation, attained finality, as there is no material to show that it was assailed by taking recourse to the remedy of revision before the higher Courts. It appears that when later on, the'Police Station Nevra was brought within the territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate?afrTilda, the petitioner again filed a complaint on thesame allegations. The second complaint on the same set of allegations, when the allegation is already enquired into by the Court of competent jurisdiction at the time, when the complaint was filed, appears to be clearly misconceived in law. ii V-SSS3S^ g 'Ste.^.^r -''a.s.sy^ ^s: Merely because, subsequently the Magistrate at Tilda had acquired territorial jurisdictional in respect of the cases arising out of the Police Station Nevra, the petitioner could not have re-agitated the same issue by filing a fresh complaint, when the complaint filed earlier before the then competent Court i.e. the Magistrate at Raipur was already examined and orders were passed on 27-09- 2010. Therefore, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the Court below to warrant interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This petition is misconceived in law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that even though; it was observed in order dated 27-09-2010 passed by the Magistrate at Raipur in the complaint earlier filed that the Court of competent jurisdiction would consider the closure report upon receipt of the case diary, as to whether the same is to be accepted or rejected, no decision has been taken in that case, whereas according to the petitibner, the closure report is not liable to be accepted and rejected and the offence is liablelo-be registered against the respondent No.2. .^' 6. Considering the aforesaid submission, this petition is finally disposed off observing that the Magistrate at Raipur shall take final decision either to accept or reject the clpsure report submitted by the police of Police Station Nevra in relation to Crime No.296 of 2009 registered on 20-12-2009, in accordance with law. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the Magistrate accepting the closure report submitted by the police, it would be open for the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. .^Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shriv%stava Judge Tumane