^s^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION N0. 88 OF 2009 PBTITIONBR RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Lalchaad Yadav Son of Bcetan Yadav, Aged abut 50 years, Occupation - Agnculturist, Resident of vill^e- Kaaakpur, PoUce Station Ramaaujganj, Tahsil -Pal, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). Ashok Yadav Son of Late Jagesar Yadav, Aged about 40 years, Jhiiawaram. Son of Karimaa Bhuiya, Aged about 35 years. Raiakumar Son of Baijnath Yadav, Agcd about 40 years. Ramlal Son of Reegu Khairwar, Aged about 40 years. Suresh Son of Goverdhan Hadjan, Aged about 30 years. Smt. Sukritklevi Wife of Ashok Yadav, Aged about 35 years, AU are resident of vfflage Kanakpur, Police Statioa-Ramaaujgaaj, Tahsil-F'al, Distt. Sm^uja(C.G.). State of Chliattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Sui^uja-Aaibikapur, Distfc Suiyija (C.G.). ,.,^,"i^V^1 ^f-^"''?: •i' pS!- PBTITION UMDBR 8EC"nON _4S2 QF THB CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973. (SB :Hontble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:-. Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, P.L. for the State/respondent N0. 7. QRAL- ORDER (Passedon 27/10/2009) 1. Tfate petition under Section 482 ofthe Code ofCrimiaal Proccdure, 1973 (iu short the Code') for quasluaeat of the order dated 15/1/2009 passed by leamed 1st Additional Sessioas Judge, (F.T.C.) Ramaaujganj, Distt, Sui^uja (C.G.) ia crimiual Revision No, 136/07 affirming fhe order disiaissing complamt uader Secdon 203 of the Codc order dated 22/11/07 passed by Judicial Magistrate Fust Class, Raniaaujganj. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued that stateinent of the coin.plainan.t is sufiScient for taking cognizance of fhe ofFence against the respondents No. 1 to 6 but Court below has committed itlegality by uot taking cognizaace ^aiast fhe respondents No. 1 to 6.. 3. On ffae other hand, leamed counsel for the State/respondent No. 7 supported fhe order impugaed. 4. Order unpugaed, copy of order of trial Court, record of Court below perased. Admittedly, at the stage of takmg cognizaace Court was required to see whether evidence adduced on behalf of the coinplamaat is pnma facie sufficicnt for taldng cognizance against the accused persons, at this stage meticulous scrutiny of fhe evidence is not required. Admittedly, tnal Court baa aot considered fhe statement recorded under Section 200 of fhe Code in its face value aad has considered the evidence considering its evidencary value thereby coimnitted an Ulegality. Consequently, order te aot sustainable under the law and is Uable to be set aside. Petition deserves to be aBowed. Order inipugned is hereby set aside. Case is remitted back to fhe Judicial M^isteate First Class, Ramaaujganj for making further inquuy into the complaint in accordance with Section 398 of the Code. Record of the Court below aad copy of the order be sent to the trial Court iinmediately. Petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on 7/12/2009. ~ Sd/- T. P. Sharma