BEFORE THE HOIN'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR CR.M.P. N0. PETITIONERS ^>- ^^ ,^? ?..•• ' A*'..-" •^^'^T^ ^ /2010 !ES~i;giS 1. Anup gupta, son of Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta, aged about 35 years 2. RameshChandra Gupta, son of Late Ram Prasad Gupta, aged about 58 years, 3. Ajay Gupta son of Ramesh Chandra Gupta, aged about 30 years 4. Jagarnath Gupta, son of Late Ram Prasad Gupta, aged about 43 years, All are resident of village Bagbahar, P.s. Bagbahar, Distt. Jashpur (CG) VER5US RESPONDENTS 1. COMPLAINANT State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Bagbahar, Distt. Jashpur (CG) 2. Balram Bhagat, son of Bacha RamBhagat, aged about 63 years, resident of village Makarchuwan, Police Station Bagbahar, Distt. Jashpur (/ii^J^^ 1^^ i2e£m /l^- ^^df_ PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR OUA^fflNG THE FlGoF CRIME N0. 41/2009. REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION - BAGBAHAR DISTT. JASHPUR ON THE BASIS OF COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE PARTIES The petitioners named above most humbly and respectfully submit as under: ^ HIGH COURT OF- CHHATTISGARH AT BIL^PUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC3B PRITINKER DIWAKER s KESPONDBNT versus Auup Gupta & Of&ers State of Chliattisearh Shri Arun Shukla, counsel for fbe appticants. Shri Neeraj Mehta, P.L. for the State. APPUCATIOSjTaiDERSECTION 482 OJP> THB CR.P.C. ORDER (29.07.20101 Heard on adinission. The present petition ffled under Section 482 of the Code of Crimuial Procedure is for quashing fhe FiR in respect of Cr.No. 41/09 registered at police station Bagbahar, district Jashpur. 2. Contention of Shri Shukla, counsel for the applicants is that after fitinj? the coinplam.t. fhe complaiaan.t has filed af&davit before fhe concemed police station that he is not interested to prosecute fhe case aad he inay be permitted to withdraw the coinplaint and fherefore fhe FIR in respect of Criiae No.41/09 be quashed. He subniits fhat even ifthe eatire case ofprosecution is taken as it is on its face value, offences as alleaed are not attracted. 3. On the other hand, it has been argued by Shri Mehta that prtma facie fhere is evideace agaiast the petitioner aiid at this stage fhe same cannot be quashed. He subaiits that tlie grounds as raised by fhe petitioner inay be the defence of the petitioner. 4. Considermg the totaiity of fhe facts, particularly fhe seriousness of fhe anegation aad as prima facie case is niade out agauist the applicants, I am not inclined to iaterfere in the petition under Sectiou 482 Cr.P.C. Tbe petition has ao substance and ffae same is accordiaglv disaiissed. Sd/- pritinkerDiwakar Judge