£3 -^) ^, l^. 17 \^ \sII3. Ol! Oj «-^ ^' £^ JJ 3.g 01 ^.3i ^ ^ zf Sl -~?. ~L-1 VMi III 1 -q rs ^i^ a ^4 .01. -i —p ^ !00t ^a ^e'o? •8? 1 ^ i ^ «^ ^ ^4 ^j. ^s ^ - cn JJ ru. £21 <. ^^ 5 13. ^! ^ s ^ §> 5 3 ,•&• 1t ^.^ Jd -^; 3- ^ ^ -q.. <-4? aj ^ ^ ^ri jiia <^i ^ 'w^ ^q ca —3 -01 <'?}. ~~ss^ lla x^ J tc> ^fe^ i ^. \\^ Q " a .a d G^ &^a a ««p ^ ^' :0-0ta § a K'-^-OT aj -\ 11»»^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cri.M.P.No. 310 of 2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENT VERSUS T.N. Dubey and another Dr. I.D. Kalwani Shri V.K. Mishra, counsel for the petitioners. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ORDER (07.05.2010) The present petition has been filed against the order dated 24.4.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Criminal Revision No. 39/2010 confirming the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by CJM Bilaspur issuing a direction for registration of the case and issuance of summons against the petitioners. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.9.2009 a cornplaint case was filed by the respondent against the petitioners praying that the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 469/34 be registered against them. According to the complainant, he constituted a firm in the name and style of M/s Shivam Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and one Sandip Pandey was his partner. Complairrant has alleged that in September, 2008 he had gone to Bombay for by-pass surgery and when he came back, he came to know that his partner Sandip Pandey had grabbed an amount of Rs. 2 Crores and 64 lakhs by playing fraud and also by manipulating the partnership deed. The complainant then approached the present petitioners who are the practicing lawyers and appointed them as their counsel. Further allegation against the petitioners is that they had informed him that as the amount involved is more than 2 Crores, recovery case has to be filed directly before the High Court and therefore, 13 per cent Court fee was required to be. paid which comes to Rs. 26 lakhs. It is alleged that the complainant was assured that within a month there from the order would be passed by the High Court. The complainant ^ '^' (^. -^ ^t ^ -^ has alleged that on 1 1.2.2009 he had given an amount of Rs. 75,000 by a self cheque and on 19.2.2009 he had given Rs. 22, 15,000 by cheque and Rs. 2,85,000 by cash. It is alleged that when ever he made an enquiry from the petitioners, he was assured that very soon the order would be passed. According to the complainant, when nothing was done by the petitioners, he made an enquiry from the office of the High Court and came to know that one writ petition has been filed. 3. After receiving the complaint, learned CJM called the police report from the Station House Officer, Bilaspur under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Pro&edure. The report was submitted by the Police on 28.10.2009. During enquiry the police also collected the documents from the ICICI bank. After recording the statement of the complainant, statements of other witnesses were recorded under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter on being fully satisfied learned Magistrate had directed for registration of the offence and issuance of summons against the petitioners. The order of the Magistrate was challenged by the petitioners before the revisional Court and by its elaborate order impugned the revisional Court has dismissed the revision. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that prima facie no case is made out against the petitioners as there is no evidence at all against them. hle submits that in such cases the High court may interfere in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Maksud Saiayed v. State of Gujrat and others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents filed along with the petition. 6. From the complaint and the statements of the witnesses and the report submitted by the Police, it is apparent that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Moreover, after recording W^^^^ii^Si^^Wiiii^W&ii^i^i- I'lBBSiSS^^I iiliiiiiiiSSSSI ^ itsfull5afisfaction,learnedMagi^s^^^ the offences arid issuahce ofsu hasbeencohfimiedbythereyJsionaICourtalso^^^^^b^ 7. The oNerimpughed thys does not suffer^^^^ infirrnity re^uiring interferenc^ ih the ^ oftheCodeofCriminalProeedure.AccoFdingl^,the^^^p^ withoutsubstanceisliabletobed1smissed.ltisc|lisrrtjssedasSuch. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge