Sinle Bench @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF'JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. ??5 ‘ 0f2011 PI: ETITONER Bhagwat Prasad Vishwakarma ‘S/o La Vishwakarma, aged about 56‘ years, Occupation— Lecturer, Vidyut Grih Uchhay Madhyamik Vidyalay, Korba R/o Super E 325 CESB Colony, Korba (East) , Tehsil and District Korba (CG). Late Shri Niranj an ‘ Versus Mohan Lal Chandra, aged about 5 years, S/o Bhagirathi Chandra, Principal , Vidyut Grih Uchhay, ‘ Madhyamik Shala, Korba East, R/o \ Quarter No. ND 23 CSEB Colony, Korba (East) , Tehsil‘and Distric Kor'ba (CG). State' of Chhattisgarh, Through, : District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) CRIMINAL MispELLANEOUs PETITION UNDER SECTION 48270} CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR SETTING ASIDE OF THE ORDER DATED“ 10.8.2011’PASSED BY SESSION CODRT, KOREA , /, g l . 5 t {1/ \ \ @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Cr.M.P.No.795I201 1 Petitioner Bhagwat Prasad Vishwakarma Versus Respondents Mohan Lal Chandra and another R Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Present:- Shri R. R. Sinha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29-1 1 -201 1) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. aggrieved by dismissal of his complaint and affirmation of the order passed by the Revisional Court. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner had submitted a blank stamp paper towards payment of fee while seeking information under R.T.l. Act, but the respondent No.1 fraudulently converted that stamp paper into an affidavit and thereby committed alleged offence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the complaint, specific allegations were made that blank stamp paper was submitted towards submission of fee, which required to be paid on an application for seeking information under R.T.l. Act. However, the respondent, in order to falsely implicate the petitioner in some cases and avoiding to give information, converted that blank stamp paper into an affidavit purporting to have been submitted by the petitioner and started leveling allegations that the documents contained different signatures by calling explanation of the petitioner. He submits that not only the complainant, but also other witnesses have clearly stated that at the time when the stamp paper was submitted, 'it was blank. However, the police report, which was factually incorrect {9 @ and completely misdirected, was given more weightage and after scrutinizing the material evidence on record, which is not permissible at the initial stage, the complaint has been dismissed. 4. After going through the entire material on record, the complaint, statements recorded by the Police and the orders of the Court below, it is found that the complaint filed by the petitioner has not been found to be trustworthy warranting registration of the case on account of certain material discrepancies. Both the Courts below have noted that the complaint appears to be frivolous, because the stamp paper was purchased for submission of an affidavit, which is clearly noted on the stamp paper and the stamp vendor has also stated that the stamp was purchased for submission of an aftidavit. The Notary has also stated that the affidavit on the stamp paper have been verified by him. The Courts below have also noted that the stamp paper bears four signatures both in respect of the affidavit and in respect of verification, which would not have been there, as there was no occasion to put so many signatures, if stamp paper was only meant to be submitted towards fee in respect of an application under R.T.l. Act. The Courts below have already noted a very relevant circumstance that it was the respondent, who had issued memo to the petitioner seeking his explanation finding that the stamp paper contained signatures of different nature. Therefore, it appears that before dismissing the complaint, the Courts below have meticulously examined the material available on record before coming to the conclusion that the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed as it does not reflect commission of offence. 5. ln the opinion of this Court, no case for warranting interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is made out. The petition, is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge