APPLICANT accused «\“Mm \ x I\IB)J‘ ///~wr « 69 gingte Bench BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR g uslu‘ I aLMu @Agrawal@ @agrawal S/o Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, 1.. Vidyavaridhi Maitri, S/o B.L. Maitri, Advocate, Age— 3g years R/o. Sultania Gait/L Sarangarh, Tahsil— Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) (Comglainant) Shri M.S. Beck, Distt. Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Office Distt. Manager, Bharat ‘Saffc‘EaTNigam Ltd., Raigarh, Tahsil and District— Raigarh (C.G.) (Accused No.1) Shri Gokual Singh, Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Circie Office Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,Raipur, Distt— Raipur(C.G.) Accused No.2 mrg NON—APPLICANT CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO. g j ([2009 . . 7 u,. ’ 6%”‘9W’g \°?x" afl/Wpkgw ,s' .. Aged about- 40 Years, Occupation— Business, R/o— A...‘ ‘ ‘ $wuf'g‘w‘v‘x\g$‘ Ié‘wfv :,,......-.&§&:gw Gourishanker Raigarh (C.G.) . Mandir road, @gw V7Q @@ State of C.G., through- Station House Officer, Sarangarh Tahsil — Saragarh , District- Raigarh (c.G.) V //’V PETITIQN Uis 482 RIW SEgTION/397 OF gODE OF \K CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR U ' SHING A COMPLAINT CASE NO. 4901 65 PENDINQ BEFORE JMFC SARANGARH N H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Misc. Shri Amit Sharma counsei for applicant. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for respondent No.4/State. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482/397 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Order (14.01.2010) This petition is directed against the order dated 12.7.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh in Criminal Case No. 490/2005. 2. Counsel for the applicant admits that against the order impugned the remedy was available for the applicant to file the revision but as he has filed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the same is also maintainable. 3. Counsel for the respondent No.4/State however submits that as the present petition has been filed about four years after passing of the order impugned, this petition is barred by limitation. Secondly, according to the State Counsel, against the order impugned in stead of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. revision should have been preferred by the applicant. 4. ln view of above, this Court is of the opinion that this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as the order impugned should have been assailed by way of revision. Moreover, i the order impugned waspassed on 12.7.2005 and the petition has been filed on 14.3.2009 and thus there is delay of more than four years in tiling this petition. In these circumstances, this petition is dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation and also that on maintainability. / i Sd/— ”i Pritinker Diwakel' / Judge APPLICANT Sushii Agrawai alias VERSUS RESPONDENTS