'snai®E BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. '' .^ t . 12010 PETITIONERS/ REVISIONERS ^^•-;"^ 2' ..^^^ ^••^•s%^ ^" RESPONDENTS ^ ^. ^ '^^ "^x 1. VIJAY KISHORE GOSWAMI S/o Late Shri Nawal Kishore Goswami @ Roopkishore Goswami aged about 50 years, SHRI MAHANT SHEKHAR SHARAN DEO Guru Shri Ramsaran Deo, aged about 17 years ( now 18 years) Both resident of village Bavamohatara, Tah. Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) . VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHATTIS.GARH Through In- charge, Police Station, Bemetara District-Durg (C.G.j. 2. VIVEKANAND SINGH S/oYudhisthir Singh by caste Jaat, aged about 50 years, R/o Rajpur, police station^ Vrindavan, Distt. Mathura (U.P.) 3. NARENDRA DAS S/o Namalum By caste Bairagi R/o Jamat Mandir, P.0. & Distt.- Rajnandgaon [C.G.] [As per the Annexure P/8 and para 16 of the Annexure P/ 9, the Name of the respondent no.2 is Vivekanand Singh, but wrongly mentioned in the cause title of the impugned opder as vivek Singh.] OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION UNDER SECTION PROCEDURE CODE 1973 -HC—78 ^ an^w^l Riii* 'cPIT 311^1'ai'lW \ WNCir ^tWeti 'ysi '<iwi<»<i, ®til^<i®,[»«'ii'(Hy,< .cy:.;N..'..?....fs<N':..^hT£'./.^l^ Wi, 200 sii^Tr •qgq? (licilj«<<ili) TCITW;Hfel3II^T SB: Hon'Me Shri Manindra MohariShriva^ava. J. 09-09-2010 8)ri Ashok Swarnakar, couns^l Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel Heard. By this p^ition uncler Sectionl called in question the correctness passed by the Addittonal Sessfons Ji Revislon No.58 of 2009 whereby Divisional Magistrate, Bemetara in| confimied. Assailing the corredness of learned counsel fbr the petitionets i^ initiated proceeding underSection order under sub sedion (1) therec|f, warrant initatbn of proceedings. that in view of the subsequent P-10), ft is ctearthat the Police has ^ubi likelihood of breach of peace and those ciroumstances, the proceedjndis abuse the process of law. A perusal of order dated Magistrate, Bemetara shows that pi| ^ctton 145 ofthe Cr.P.C. was pas4ed 13-10-2009 (Annexure P-7). A bacRground ofdispute betwsen the the Station House OfBcer has repoj peace. chl<lt^l<llTT iTTO?ff ^f f^^ <f^i^.l< ^STfOTSII^T s^l for the pdittoners. Lawkferfortheaate. |482 ofthe Cr.P.C., the petittoners have tnd valklity of order dated 19-08-2010 (dge, Bemetara, Distrid Durg in Criminal ord|er dated 14-10-2009 passed by the Sub Criminal Case No.02/20C© has been the impugned order, submission of that the Sub Dh/isional Me®istratehad ofthe Cr.P.C. and passed preliminary herec|f, without there being any treterial to counsel fbr the petiticmeis aigues comitiunicatron drted 11-12-2C09 (Annexure . ^ubmitted a report statjng that there is no dispute ateo. He submits ttat under under Sectton 145 crf the Q-.P.C. are 145 Lebmed 1(0 141-10-2009 passed by the a.ib Divisional i|eliminary onter under sub sectton(1) of on the basis of a police report dated |>erusal of report ahcws that giving k>artfes and registration aS criminal case, ted ffiat there is likeljhood of breach of 3IR?:'T^I^;TOi' WT^?rsinRr tn^fff th*(|cb ~F^ •^wci^, ®tf1yi<o,fsj^iy^< . G^.'M.I, Tw^~Vo-blt-o)t> •r"""""^. 200- 3^1 ''RW ( <jq[^is|I^ET) ?WRR^lte[3iR?I 1- <t]i<<Iri<<li v^ ^f 'fe^t <F>t^i( ^aflw OT^I \. Tumane In the considered opinion ctf .(Ann^ure P-7,) constitutes relevant prasee^ififls' under Sedton 1^(1) o| order ioi- tne purposes of making enc Divfeiooal, Magjstrate te empowened report. Submission ctf leamed oouns^l material to warrant initiation of therefore, oannd be accefAed. Othei) petitionera is th^ in view of subseq^ 11-12-2009 (Annexure P-10) before tl] warrant initiatton of proceedings on W/: has stded that case for attachmentl Cr.P.C. is nc* made out. To my mindj tikelihood of breach of peace Inviewofthe under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. is n* The petition is accordingly proc^edings has ce^ed to aforesaid conshJlsration t|)is Court, the report datal 13-10-2009 r)iaterial fcir the purposes of mitBtkm of the Cr.P.C. and passing pneliminary juiry thereunder. At this ^age, the Sub |to issue lyetiminary order on such a fbr the petittoners that there exists no and issuine preiiminary order submissfon of leamed counsel for the |ent report submitted by the Police on |e Sub Dwistonat Magistrate, tt does ndt • ground that the Strtton House Officer |as provided under Sedion 146 of the I the said report does not mean that the east (sration, no case fbr inwking jurisdtetion adeout. dis(Mssed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastaya Judge -rf^