M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 461 of 2007 APPLICANT Pravin Mishra. Aged about 48 years, son of Late Triveni Shankar Mishra, Tahsildar, Pathalgaon, DiStrict — Jashpur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Father Lalit Kumar Ekka S/o Shri Julies Ekka, Caste—Uraon, Aged about 35 years, R/o Ashadip. Pathatgaon, District — Jashpur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh . Through : Collector, Jashpur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present : Shri Y.C. Sharma, counselfor the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2IState. QR A L O R D E R (Passed on 24-08-2009) Heard. This petition is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminai Procedure for quashment of the order dated 09-08-2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur Iink Kunkuri in Criminai Revision No. 18/2007, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has reversed the order dated 23-12-2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathalgaon in un-registered criminal case on the ground that after discussing the evidence learned revisional court has giVen some findings and has reversed the order for which revisional court was not competent Court. Order impugned reveals that after making enquiry under chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the compiaint under Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the compiainant preferred criminal revision and vide order impugned revisional Court has directed the trial Court to reconsider and pass the order. The scope in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 is very limited and in case of dismissal of the complaint under Section 203, there is no scope. The Court is only competent court to’ direct the Magistrate to make further enquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code and Magistrate is required to make further enquiry into the complaint and reconsider the evidence available on record. While passing the order impugned in Criminal revision, the Court has discussed with the evidence for its satisfaction and trial Court is required to make further enquiry. The order passed by the revisional Court is only relating to the order/direction in terms Section 398 of the code for that limited purpose. l do not find any groundfor evoking extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Sdl- T. P. Sharma Judge