L,3 “w IN THE HIQ‘I COUm‘ OE CHHKI'TISGAW AF BILASPUR. w. p.1xzo. J~LLIQ /2ao 2. ,Lat Muke§a Shanna son ofAMahesh $1anna, ag$ éoout 22 years, resident of Pansagaxpara, Raipur. Téi. and Distuaaipuf, c,c;, ERSUS. bx. Arjmalal Agrawal son of Bhuranal Ag rléwai . Smt. $hranistha Agrawal wife oi .D‘r. Arjvunlal Agrawal. I Both xestldmt of Ramsagarpara, Rapur 'Stat e of Gm at’ca. Sg am. Th rough P. S. Azad Cnowk, Raipur. WRIT PRTI’I’ICN UNDER ARIICLES 226 OF TH}; CO‘VSTITWICN OF INDIA. /W AGAINuT THE RE$PWDENT N0.3 PEEITI CNER. __ _ 4 ‘Q’H FOR ISSUAVCE OF Awmpmzw mam WRrrs,c2RDm AFPRQDRIAEIqq DtRecizb/v‘ K Petitioner WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘\ Present :- as‘hok 1 (2008) 2 scc 4119 M MM HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPFUR . . M WRIT mrrwN N0; 114:3: OF 21302 Mukesh Shanna Versus Respondents Dr. Arjtmajal Agrawal & Others (SB : Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri Maiay Bhaduri. Advocaie for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pzmel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 22’ day ofJuly, 2010) At the vexy outset, ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts of the instant ease is squarely covered by a decision of Supreme Court in Saki? Vaszx v. State 0f UP. &: others]. Thus, the recourse to the provisions of Code ofCt‘jmioai Procedure, 1973 (fol; short ‘the CKPC. ’) before the Magistrate in tight ofthe aforesaid decision. Leamed counsel appearing for other side has no objection. Accordingly, the Wiit petition is dismissed as Withdrami with the afore~ stated liberty. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihomi. it Judge "