@ enmp. No.928g201o _ [Agglicatio‘n uts 482 of the Cr.P.Ci Agpearance: Shri Rajesh Kumar Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ’ ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 10. 12.20 10) Heard on admission. 2. This petition under Section 482 of Gr.P.C. is direeted against the order dated 14‘1020 10 passed by learned lst’Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.105/09, whereby order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the Magistrate, taking cognizanee for ) alleged commission of offence under Section $00 of the IPC, has been set aside and the complainant dismissed. ' 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that horn the contents of the complaint and preliminary statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., a case for commission of oEence under Section 500 of PETITIONER Prem Kumar Jha Versus RE$PONDENTS Smt. Usha Dutta & another the IPC is clearly made out against respondent No.1. He $ubmits that in the complaint as well as in the preliminary statemeixts, Vit has been deposed that respondent No.1 made compiaint against the petitioner. It has also been stated that taking cognizanceofthat complaint, the petitioner was caned and the Authority issued him a V warning. ‘ . Learned counsel for the petitioner snbmits that the respondent No 1 made a false complaint agamst the petitioner and therefore, ‘ view of the preliminary statement made and the contents of the complaint a case for proceedings against respondent No. 1 is mad out and therefore, the revisxonal Comt commt ed illegality and ’ exceeded its jnrisdiction in setting a51de the order taldng' cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the revisional Court could not have assessed the evidence to come to the conclusion that’the same is liable to be disbelieved, at thisstage,‘ the evidence is not required to be assessed; but only as to whether on the basis of the contents of the complaint and preliminary statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., case for proceedings is made out. ‘ . Relying upon the judgnent in the case of Rgiendra‘Knmar Situam Panda and Ors. Vs. Uttmn and another {1999 (i1, M.P.L.J., 544} and the principle laid down therein, the learned ‘ revisional Court has taken into consideration the contents of the ' complaint and also to prehminary statements recorded under wmwmws e as : V Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The Court came to the conclusion that mm the entire compliant and the preliminary statement, all that has been alleged is that the respondent No. 1, a lady teacher, had made a complaint against the petitioner to his higher Authorities, alieg‘ng ' that the petitioner misbehaved with her and thereafter, the petitioner was given a Warning not to repeat such a behavior; The revisional Court has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid ~ allegation do not make out a case fOr commission of on‘enoe under Section 500 of the IPC. teManea a:. . In the opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the learned revisional Court does not suil‘er hom any illegality or perversity. It ' is not a case where the revisional Court has assessed the evidentiary value of the incriminating material evidence appearing on record. The Court has come to that conclusion on’a findin'gthat‘ making such a complaint to higher Authority regarding misbehavior, by itself does not amount to commission of offence under Section 500 of IPC relying upon the judgnent in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Panda (supra). ’ . In View of the aforesaid discussions, I do not iind any merit in the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly \ dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ?i W ‘