IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M. P. No. Wis} OF 2011 PETITIONER REVISIONIST Samamath Ghoshal, Son of late Shri S. C. Ghoshal, aged about 55 years, Resident of Village Subhashnagar, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (co) 5—J Presenmd by Shri [vella (2.5/74 Dam!”.......g.‘.3..‘././L.......... u. P.R. Na ............................... ,. Q9 RESPONDENT Ranjeet Mandal, Son of late Babula Mandal, aged about 41 years, Resident of Village Subhashnagar, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (co) g/ PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 VERSUS l XI—HC 78 l/ mm ...... zoo Cvmww4gézt/ mm (Wu) WWW 3211mm WWW WW W®§R amimm [SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan'Shrivastava, JJ 5.8.20 1 1 Shri V.K. Pandey, counse for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the etitioner has made limited prayer. It is submitted that the petitione had iiled revision aggrieved by the order of attachment and a prayer waS made that order of attachment be set aside an the matter be remanded to the Magistrate to examine the ssue regarding maintainability of proceedings under Section 145 f the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the etitioner submits that the revisional Court found that the order o attachment was unwarranted and unsustainable in law and the c se was remanded to the Magistrate. The court below did not c nsider the other prayer that the Magistrate be directed to ned the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 145 ofthe Cr.P.C. From the order of the re 'sional Court, I find that the order of attachm ent has been set asid on prima facie consideration of the urt and the Court below has also material available before the o considered the report of Patw ' and police. Consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the order passed by revisional Court, it would be proper to finally dispose of ttis petition with a direction that the e i XI-HC 78 Wm W1 zoo mm (Wu) Mmm‘ WW W E1 mam >r¥ . am‘m m W .. KW ‘— ammm ? Magistrate shall examine the submiSSion of the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the proceedings under Section 145 of the'Ci‘iP r : Withithe’aforesaid observation, the petition is finany disposed of A *‘ ( Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava .Judge Praveen I, w