@ PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENT HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR ' Cr.M.P.’No. 34/2011 ‘ Salim Qurashi, S/o Late Mhd. Yasin, Age 3O years, Asst. Manager ChOlamandalam, D.B;S.Finance LtdT (presently known as Cholamandalam Investments 85 Finance Company Ltd) Sahdev Nagar Rajnandgaon Dlst Rajnandgaon (CG) State of Chhattlsgarh Through P S Lal Bagh Rajnandgaon [C G ] PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presenti— Mr. Devarshi Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.- Ms. Sunita Jain, P.L. for the State/respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 27/01/201 1) ,By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (1n short the Code) petitloner has prayed for suitable direction r: .ating to condition No 3 imposed by SeSSions Judge Rajnandgaon Vide order dated 22/ 1 1/2010 in criminal reViSion No 21/2010 Mr Devarshi Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner 8r, Ms Sunita Jain P L for the State/respondent are heard Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Ravi Bharti and his wife Mansi Bharti has personated and succeeded in getting loan from the l petitioner’s Finance Company for purchase of vehicle in the name of S t anjay Sinha subsequently SanjaySinha was found non-existenée person herefore, offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 8r, 471 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against Ravi Bharti and Mansi Bharti. Vehicle has been repossessed by the petitioner’s company and standing in its office if same is not sold then the petitioner would be put into substantial ‘loss'. 4. Vide order impugned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon has permitted to sell thevehicle but has put three conditions. Petitioner and purchaser may be in position to follow the conditions No. l 8L2 but the condition No. 3 T E3 j m would cause hardship by whichithe Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon has directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/— to present petitioner and also surety bond to alleged purchaser. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that furnishing the surety by both the parties would serVe the purpose and direction of bank guarantee along with direction'to‘ deposit entire sale proceed would be hardship to the petitioner and purchaser. On the Other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposed the petition. Vide order impugned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon has imposed following three conditions:— 1. m3?! WIT'm VitGf’L o4 d/5771 $ ibwl $1 w WWII'WaftmThamrmWd W$WWWWW$11W ammwmmwml. . WH$%—a}aa‘$m$m¥wf?éft%w arm mmw m3 weaning? 37} W W$wauwmwagmmw Wanamaiafawaé’fml W$m$niadmwmw$ wmwmqmmmdaqa§$nwv€f$ wuuwmawdwtfrg—cl’rftg’fwférm ém'wml Definitely, at the time of imposing conditions reasonable restriction or condition is required to be imposed in the light of‘ COndition No. l i.e. relating to deposit of entire sale proceed Court was under obligation to take lieral View relating to furnishing’bank guarantee although Court b below has taken extra precaution but by taking extra precaution definitely; hardship has been caused to the petitioner and alleged purchaser. Consequently, petition is allowed. Condition No.- 3 is modified and directed that instead of furnishing bank guarantee petitioner and purchaser shall furnish bond With surety to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/—. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge . .