XI-HC—78 "3'^ ^IMH^, ©ttlwKe,f<Krtl+l*4< NTOCtl CT>11<»» "^200 3TI^?F TT?W ( ytyi^) W^T ^T f<4ich 'cT^T ^TT^T'9RW ^RTTW ^rf?cT 3ff^[ Sinale Bench; Hon'ble Ji W.P.FCr.] N (Petition under Article 226/^ Petitibner Kalyan Singh] Vs Resbondent 1.; State of Hom^ <& <=r»i^t<n<i1i *IM<A '?f fs^ <Fait$i< ^3<Rm3Ty^?T jstice Dhirendra Mishra .1438/2009 27 of Constitution of India) Thakur Prasc|d @ Billu Singh @ Raju, S/o Late Shri Mankur<|[hi (wrongly mentioned in order as Agcd about 26 years, Resident of Premnagar, P|3lice Station Podi, District Korea (CG.) Chhatti^garh, Through Secretary, Police; Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C^) ^ ^ 2. Stotipn 1-louse ^)fficer, Police Station Podi, bistnct l<|orea ^e) 19.3.2009 | 1 Mr. Prakash Tiwari; Advoca1|s for the pel'itfoner. 4 Mr. Vinay Hoirit, &y. Advocaj Heard. The petitioner is facin^ punishable under Sections 417 <& 4| Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur. and prayed for taking cognizance Screening Committee also wh<| petitioner for appointment, howe| e General forthe State. prosecution for the offence ?0 of the IPC in the court of Chief At the stage of defence evidence the petitioner moved an dpplicati(|n under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. ^f offence against the members of processed the application of /er, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application. The petifioner preferred Cr. R^v. No.45/08 XI-HC—78 ^TT^T'SFT'f^tW 'cW 3TT^T sy»*iw k ^l "STo^^jl^Krt^ ^tilwKo, T«l<rtl<My WRC-II tt»*ii<n "^200 ^TT^fi 'q^ffiT (yii^^l) ^^TTW^rf^T 3?T^T •L- before the learned Sessions Jucj order dated 12.8.2008 (Annexur^ ground that rejection of above was not justified and directed| applicatiQn on merits. In compliance of the said oil the japplication with ^an^ obse^ prosecution witnesses have deposed anything dgainst tKe n^ there js no evidence against then| be taken against them thdt too <^ re9i'stration of offence. The petitioner's criminal re| also been dismissed by the i| (Annexure P-1) by the similarobs^ Learned counsel for the ^ dated 13.11.2002 (Annexure P-3] Magistrate has clearly observed the basis of recommendations of] establishes that the petitioner-j Mankeyrani and in these ^T TTPT?Jf "^? 'fe(3t <RI<^I< ^^ifims^n^T ^e, Koriya, Baikunthpur, who vide P-4) allowed the revision on the (|pplicationon the ground of delay the trial court to decide the der, th6 trial court again rejected vatipn that all the important examihed qnd they have not smbers of screening committee, and therefore/ no cognizance can fter more than eight years after ^ision against the above order has ii|npugned order dated 16.2.2009 t'vations. [etitioner referring to the order argued that the Chief Judicial tjiat the petitioner was selected on Iselection committee which clearly iccused is sibling of land owner circui(nstances the prosec^tion should .^ XI-HC—78 3TI^T ^T'f^fNr ^^n ^n^i $h^w .d ^ '755T "41^1d'4, <9ti1-M4i<o, fsxni'My *11*ICTl (h*ll<!h :'^200 ^n^r^^! (yif^^) ^RTTW ^f?H 3TI^l 3- thfe clarify whether the above doc(|i genuine, then the offence is committee also. In these ci| Magistrate was obliged to take the screening committee and Section 190 of Cr.P.C.has wrongl>| After going through the or| 3) as well as Paragraph-12 of (Annexure P-1) passed by the| (Baikunthpur), I am of the opinio|i rightly rejected the prayer of th| infirmity or jurisdictional errorc| warrantin9 interference in Article 227 of the Constitution ofl The petition being devoij dismissed and is accordingly heret| itself. No orderas tocosts. oM^fd<il"i 'HTR^ff ^ f^st <rai<^l< ^^iRm^n^T ment is genuine and if it is not made out against the screening 'cumstances the Chief Judicial ognizance against the members of •he petitioner's application under been rejected. der dated 13.11.2002 (Annexure P- impugned order dated 16.2.2009 learned Sessions Judge, Koriya that both the courts below have e petitioner. There is no illegality, )mmitted by both the courts below of writ jurisdiction under India. (1 of substance deserves to be ^y dismissed at the admission stage exe|"cise Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge