HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 29/2011 PBTITIONER Revisioner before Court below RESPONDBNTS the VERSU8 1. 2. Arun Kumar Dewangaa aged about 45 years, S/o Ramnaiayaa Dewangan resident of Mahamaya para I>uraai Basti Distdct Raipur (C.G.). Sint. Ctopika Rani Dewaugaa aged about 36 years w/o Kirtaulal Dewangaa, R/o fhrough Hexnant Kumar Dewan^gaa, Near Saatoshi Maiidir Bhaupuri, PoUce Station Khanitarai, District Raipiir (C.G.) Present address house of Ramnarayaa Dewangan 288/B, Samta Colony, Police Station Sarswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). State of Chliattisgarh through the Police Station Saraswsati Nagar Raipur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRUflINAL PROCBDURE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. S. Initiaz AIi, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Ms. SunitaJain, P.L. forthe State/respoudent No. 2. Respondent No, l not noticed, ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 24/01/2011) By fhis petition under Section 482 of fhe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code') petitioner has chaUenged the legality aad propriety offhe order dated 7/1/2011 passed by 9{h Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur in crimiaal revision No. 181/2010 aSiniiiug fhe order dated 3/7/2010 iu cruniual complauit case No. 641/2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur taking cognizaace aud proceeding ^amst fhe petitioner for the ofFence punishable under Section 406 read witli Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Mr. S. Imtiaz AU, leamed counsel for fhe petitioner & Ms. Suuita Jaiu, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 2 are heard. ^-- Order impugned, copy ofcomplaint, copy ofappUcation ffled for retum of Stridhan before the Judge, Family Court aud copy of ofher documents perused. Lcamed counsel for fhe petitioner subnuts that previously respondent No. 1 has filed appUcation for retum of Stridhan and fhereafter she has filed present coinplaint for the offence puiiishable uader Section 406 read wifh Section 34 of fhe Indiau Penal Code in which she has neifher aUeged nor stated in her stateuient ttiat present petitioner has not retumed her Stridhan or has crmunaUy misappropriated ftie same. Therefore, tbe second complamt ia absence of auy deinaad, registration of criminal case against the petitioner and proceediug agamst fhe petitioner for fhe conunission ofofFence piuushable under Section 406 of the Indiau Penal Code woiikl oiily be abuse ofthe process ofthe Court. As per copy ofdocuments, firstly respondent No. 1 has appUed before the Fanuly Court for retum of her Stridhan invokuig civil jurisdicdon fhereafter she has filed complaiat under Section 406 read wifh Section 34 ofthe Indiaii Penal Code relating to Stridhan. In Paras- 6 & 7, ofher coraplaint she has speci&cally aUeged that petitioner and ofher co- accused persons have not retumed her Stridhan even after repeated deinaad and even cruninal misappropriated her property; same is supported by her statement. These materials are pruna facie sufficient for proceeding against fhe petitioner. I do not fiad any ground for interference in exercise of extraordinaiy uiherent jurisdiction in tenns of Section 482 of fhe Code. ConsequeuUy, petition is Uable to be dismissed aud is hereby disinissed. Other iatenm applicafions are also dismissed. _._-—— T. P. Sharma Judge <^-