B. pet'.tioner RespQndents ^^ HiGH COURT OF CKHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR Cr.M.P.No.8'!2of2010 Chandrakant Singh Si'o Lats Shri indra Singh KshaSri, aged about 29 years, r/o Mahadeo Ghat Road, behind Shiv Shankar Hotei, Raipur, P.S. D.D.Nagar Raipur, Tahsii and District Raipur (CG). Versus 1. Stats of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, Raipur (CG). 2. Nain Singh, agsd about 45 years, 5/o Late Shri Sndra Singh Kshatri, R/o Hathband, Tahs'l Simga, District Raipur (CG). (Petition under Section 4S2 ofthe Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bie . T.P. Sharma, J.) Present: IVir.V.R.Tiwari, counsei for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.jha, Dy.Govt.Advocate for rsspondent No.1,'Stste. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 13tn January, 2011) 1. By this pstition undsr Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has chaiienged legalifr/ and propristy of ttie ordsr dated 5.8.2010 passed by the Sesslons Judgs, Raipur in Criminai Revision No.62/2010, affirming the order dated 8.2.2010 passed by the Additiona! Chief Judidai Magistrats, Raipur in unregistered Criminai Case, v/hereby iearnsd Additionai Chlsf Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the compiaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. on ths ground Ihat statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 200 to 202 of the Cr.P.C. do not disciose the commission of offence punishabte under Ssction 306 ofthe I.P.C. Same was chaitenged bsfore the revisionai Court and whiie dismissing the revision the revisional Court has heid that the aiisgsd commission of suicide may b®as a resuit of torture, but torture in this case was not abetment for commission of suteicie. 2. ! havs heard teamed counsei for the parties, perused ths ordsr smpugned, order of the trial Court, copy of the compiaint and statements recorded undsr Sections 200 to 202 of the Cr.P.C. and ofter documents filed on behalf of the petltioner. 3. At the time of passing any order under Section 203 and 204 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required fo consider sufficisnt ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of taking cognizancs and proceeding against the accused, Court is not required to evatuate the evidence or to consider She evidence in its evldentiary vaiue. Whils passing the order dated 8.2.2010, the triai Court has considered that the petifioner has exaggerated hts complaint and stetsment. At Shis stage, Court is not required to consider exaggeraiion, omission and contradiction or its evidentiary vaiue. White dismisslng the revision, the Sessions Judge, Raipur has considered that suicide may be as a result oftorture but the aileged torture does not come into purview of abetment. 4. By passing such orders, both the Courts beiow have committed iiiegality and excesded the jurisdiclion vested on it. 5. Consequently, the petition is ailowed. Order impugned and order of the trial Court are hereby set aside. Case is remitted to the Court of Additiona! Chief Judicial Magisfrate, Raipur. Additionat Chisf Judiciai Magistrate, Raipur is directsd to make further inquiry into complaint in terms of Section 398 of the Cr.P.C. and pass the order afresh. The petitioner is directed to remain present before the Additionai Chief Judteia! Magistrate, Raipur on 21.2.2QU_.___ Sd/- T.P.Sharu; Judge ^/