IN THEHON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPURIC.G.) CR.M.P.NO. UryQ OF2011 APPLICANT COMPLAINANT ^•>l^-.s^tl^ ^^3E-<>N Q^——'t'y" /^) '•^ !.; •' Oa*BA RESPONDENT Accused Person Bhauram Sahare^son of Shri Tukaram Sahare, aged about 45 years, resident of Dauchora, Khairagarh, Thana and Tehsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ^VERSUS'-'-: ./:;\-^: •/.,.•:^,^ Sunita Yadav, D/o ofLate Shri Bhagchand Yaday, aged about 42 years, Assistant Syb Inspector pf Police, Thana Khairagarh,Tehsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 4&2 OF Cr.P.C. /f^ ^••^TB'a B -iB^1.''?'-'® gf 3'Kn TI K,-»* amsiit^wiR? ^Sf '^Mld<4,. ®fll.M*I(o,fsjcll-Hy .C--r^'^J^,\Ajo. ^'0/1; v^' 2^ •^200 s(^\ 'q^r (Tpfgq^tf) TOIIWflftd 311^51 'nitli'i'il-i iiiiiltfftz'] TfSn?Il ^sifOTSiI^? SB: Hbn'bleShri Manindra Ivionan snnvastava-37 230-2011 Shri V.K.Sharma, counsel fo|r the petitioner. Shri Pawan Kesharwani, coijnsei for the respondent. Learned counsel for the re^pondentsubmits that he does not want to file any reply as aii the reievant docum^nts are on record. Heard finally. i This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been flled by the petitioner / 1 compiainant, aggrieved by order |dated 16/6/2011 passed in revision by which order dated 19/05/09 dismissing th Learnedcounsei for the petitioner contended that though from the compiaint and preliminary statements of th^ complalnant's witnesses, clear and specifie ailegations of commission of offer|ce under Section 500 IPC were made out, the i^e complaint by appreciating the veracity and a^ in the complaint and me statements of fte Courts beiow have dismissed th reiiabiiity of the aliegations mad that the compiainant is involved irt premises in which nothjng was rei because of the abusive ianguage complainant feit humiiiated and others, who had gattiered ther^ ^ complaint of the petitioner has been ainrmed. witnesses. Learned counse! for fie petitioner submitted that in the compiaint, ii has been clearly aileged in speci< studio ofthe complainant on 22/1 (( ^c words that the respondent entered the photo ?/08 and started abusing and making ailegations saie of ganja and thereafter, she searehed the jsovered. At that time, crowd had gathered and psed and search carried out in his premises, the his reputation lowered down in the esieem of . He further submits that in the preiiminary statements of the complainant witi|iesses - Anii Sahare, Gopai Yadav and Prashant Sahare, the allegations made in t(ie compiaint have been supported whteh cleariy made out a case Tor registration by taking cognizance but the iearned magistrate •inCTR—"s. i <n— 2/2il l i—1,50,000. T' ——• - an^r'WR'iNi' '(WT 3D^r siiUica 7S( -^ww^, ^ww, fifrtiy^ C-f^^h . \A^O • ff^O/1 1 sii^?T'q?^ Cyt^^isr) ^ iRaiwafe; ati^i 5 scrutinized the veracity of the cas^ to be seen was whether there ^as sufRcisnt ground for proceedings and not whether a case for conviction is petition has also been dismissed v| •*>i<<i<-)4l4iiicil''tf fs'a TfSn^; ^? aifgn 3^'?' ignoring that at that stage, all that was required made out. On revision preferred, the revision ithout considering this aspect. A perusal of the complaint (led by the petitioner shows that even according to the complainant, the responden| had arrived in the photo studio and carried out seareh aileging thaf the complain^nt was engaged in saie of ganja. in the police report calied by the Magistrate, it Has been reveaied that the respondent had come to the premises of the petitioner|upon receipt of information from an informant regarding possession and traffi Rojnamchasana also shows that station along with the constable ir| police station and recorded in Rc|jnamchasana that seareh was carried out upon receiving information regarding drijig trafficking. As far as the iegality and v; the respondent is a police officer premises where any contraband lidity ofthe proceedings ofsearch is concerned, ^nd had authority under the iaw to seareh in the is found to be available and kept for saie or As far as allegations rega) t;king of ganja. The entries made in the |the respondent had proceeded from the police connection with search and had retumed to the consumption and for that purpcfse, wide powers have been conferred under Section 42 of the Nareotic Drifigs and Pswhotropic Substances Act, 1985. Therefore, the arrival of the resp<}ndent and search carried out in the premises of the petitioner was in discharge of jier official duty. ding use of abusive ianguage are concerned, both the Courts below, after p^rusai of ihe statements and eontents in the compiaint have recorded that th^re are discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and (he independent witnesses had not said anything about hurling of abuse. On thqt basis, the Courte below have come to the BraWi—F'<;;40—2/20' i—1,50,000. 8 % aiI^t^r^lH? wr an^i wiw DeepH ^^ -?ST "4i^irt<<, 'E?Tily^i(o, fsi'diy^< (Zm.^.^ . •t^-B . ^f fd 1[) [200 aTf^TT^T (iy(-i«i<^Et) TBfIW ^lfei 311^1 3 conciusion thaf n6^:ase for regls|:enng me case ana taKing~%gnl2dnce is made out. It is aiso found that the Couijts beiow while rerusing to take ct^nizance have taken into consideratiori the conte of tne compiainant's witnesses a^ the poiice to come to the eoncM out as from the overall material wntn'fil'V^ tf fe^i •(fSre^K ^siRms^? nts of the compiaint, the preliminary statemente > also police report and statements recorded by ion that no case for taking cognizance is made on record, no case of intention to defame the peh'tioner is made out. ! .i In the opinion of this Court, there is no illegaiity or perversity committed by the Courts beiow so as to warran^ interference by this Court !n exereise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. The pel ition is accordingiy dismissed. sdj^ <;hrivastava ^.Ata^»ton. judge '•fRiil, TiiiHii?|Pi—F.S;',4()—2/2&I !—1,50,000.