gmgw Bench IN THE HON'B’]§ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT R11 A qm IR Cr.MV.P. No. ’zi #f S’ ’ /2011 PETITIONER Dilip Das Manikpuri, S/o F001 Das, aged 29 years, R/o Village Gidhwa, P.S. Khamaria, Distt. Durg (C.G.‘) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Durg. 2. Krishna, S/o Bhakla Ram Gond, aged 30 years, R/o Village Gidhwa, P.S. Khamaria, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Ramesh, S/o Dukalu Ram Gond, aged 2O years, R/o Village Patora, P.S. Khamaria, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. Mukesh, S/o Hemuram Gond, aged 25 years, R/o Village Dhorli, P.S. Sahaspur—Lohara, Distt‘ Kabirdham (C.G.) 5. Lalit, S/o Bhakla Ram Gond, aged ‘35 years, R/o Village Gidhwa, P.S Khamaria, Distt. Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENT 6. Shyam Lal Sinha, S/o Khemu Sinha, COMPLAINENT aged 64 years, R/o Village Sagona, P.S. Khamaria, Distt. Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ACUSED PERSONS .’_\ , PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. ‘ a” $J . o WW m 200 mm (WET) mmfa'vfm WWW WWW WWW %Q’1W éasimanw Shrivastava J. a petitioner. (er for the State/respondent No.1. spondents No.2 to 6. SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan 24-08-2011 Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for tht Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel Law Shri P. P. Sahu, counsel for rq Heard. This petition has been filed dated 04-06—2011 passed by the J District Durg in Criminal Case No.01] have been committed by respondent compounded. At the outset, learned counsel present case, offence is alleged to h: amendment of Section 320 of the Cr.l compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitk legal position, the petition has no mer‘. The petition is accordingly dis issed / oy the petitioner aggrieved by order udicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, 2011, by which, the offence alleged to s No.2 to 6 have been allowed to be for the parties jointly submit that in the ave been committed, after the date of ’.C., which makes the alleged offence >ner fairly submits that in view of the Tumane