"- ? IW» InSI^IIRltelfo (al^b U»M^| ilb ^lEbtpit Ii(iyffi ^ E&ira 2 I&US lypPIE J@frffi ibSepS ^M/ESt-flS sin »i & iiett i"1 ^ M&^» tt^a J**^ SMffi te Cbfe |?1^ Blg^: ^ Sna^lh h|pgj flll*|»lh O CUafc ^>?>tb iMt^Ji ia2g|UE Bfrie :fy :s^B. g»mrfttt^ sikgf jtuijp-ic^ AB^Ux IUI34,:ESI—ffiUtt SoSSSi aOB^pi liMS W3if»B»n ftftal-nr BIS V^pj. ^tt j^ 9tpM'ffi Sf^ tBsK 3$»^I ^hii^ pit3»re^fB ^-anTiMi5P|FpreE^K^sppS .'r\ \; A Jtfi Ul^fe &Vtail^~ i»t"j's>|*ttlh—l^!ts &ltttlh—'SU'^lrklh^ |ik»bft ya' iklhyMa-' »^k^— yMby ?fe ss fi£L^& fiuaaa^ iiiy |A se &a, ^a ^&.i talPib t xisie jtjate idtetMt'y i^ ytB y'lis St-R ^Kltay lli'lnj b -3U ysibP^b (piy- it-ifcs ^Ti&itsy ife'fe' ^fe y.ae^.iby — ehikia y>^ i»t«<biisiw b ihiMa uw.ta luy fe d»IM& &1*. ^4te wstfulh y ?fti>l<t u>At> ^ft ^li> ^e ftp'<hl!k'^ is^i&^pii.'ot y^Hi iti^iBib lyy WMii *^ia»e Ujti pk ££&^ AJ&1& llfilisiJfe '6 - y.^ Atbiiy.y.. my (hiMs fcqai^ iyfa ^& oe &a .shi^is. my&&. 'e thfMa u»,t> tuy ^fe 96 &K thfM^ ^ttfi •z ; A1&I& B&& (Py pM. 26 &E; 'hlM^ tt^blfg <hi>tfrpftfr uay ^fe sc &a AJ&B Ay&te-s fc ^ &lMfeiate 1^^ 'hS^ift i^l&fe-fr , AINA Pftfe j^ii ^fc SS 4ifM& ^ Wh^V U(fM£ blMtbTi -b* IPhj jab fl/ ftft AIAIi £ja.fe"2 WiWM^ t^ S^^ l&^li. ^t ^& ss && *i>'" fat't ^^^^.....-•-•"^ .s-s^s^^ ..•"•""""^•l^w-:-^"^ •* /<\ ^l -*** , ^'^^^^ ^^....'••^^- »^5B ••^^^- t&&Bl@6( f(f31ftl ? 4 H11CT) «>N|eS ^Ef "4i<iid<f, aTii'y<i6, [sidl'yy,'!. ...&.:...ff..-.e.,.&,.^^ St^v TPW ('^(3^?) aTi^l^tlyfNi- Ti<'ff3n^[Bi:rfeT — "^\ ^RIIWHfeai^I SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J7 fhe petitioners for quashirsj again.st fhe petitioners. Leamed counsel for fht petitioner No.l-Ms. Madhu of cases pending ;between t|: petitioner-Madhu Saraf, aUegji lil<l[CT<ill WivS t< TS^t <p4^;l<. ^ajfman^r 25.11.2011 Ms. Tanushree Das, A^vocate along with petitioner No.l-Ms. Madhu Saraf. Heard on adniission. This petition under Sec[tton 482 ofthe Cr.P.C has been filed by coiaplaint ffled by the respondent s petitioners, who appeared along with araf, submitted fhat ttiere are nuinber le parties and on the report made by iig comimission of offence under Section 498aS~of-the IPC, other pen£(lprovision, number of cases have been registered againsf fhe resp^nudent. It is subm.itted that now ftie respondeat, on afterfhought lodged com.plaint against th< inade by him in ttie past submitted fhat it is only wh^n nuiuber of cases have been registered against the respondent on case on afterfhought ground grounds, based on concocted facts, has petitioners aud no such aUegation was against ftie petitioners. It is furhter coiaplamt inade by the petitioner in nuiuber of cases, fhat fhe r^spondent has now come out with a new , seekiag to abuse tfae process of law. Takuig various subi^issions, which have been made by petitioner-Madhu Saraf in t|iis case, it is found fhat tn. fhe uistant -t- XI-HC—78 n ^~sf •<<l^ld'4, ®T)l'H'i|S,(qdiy^< HWWf JftNl'nSt 'TR,200 aT!^rqBf?^tSfi- ^qrsn^TgiiTO- ^E Praveen sn^T'^Ri-C^ir^^) ?CTW^lf5?I3!I^I —2 petition, it has nowhere been ofFence has been registered a^ of fhe respondent. It has als< taken cognizance of fhe cc peti.tion,;,on p^rusal, discloses between the^parties and all complaint Iias now been file{ aUegation. In fhe petition, it I) any appUcation of m.ind, fhe be registered in exercise of Cr.P.C. Therefore, from the " disclosed that fhe Court has e|i 156 13). of fhe Cr.P.C. or h^: agauisfc the petitioaers, regist^i Therefore, af tius stage,| petition, I am not incluied to spect&cally stated as to whefher any ^ainst fhe petitioners on the coinplaint not been averred that fhe Cpurt has ijmplamt by registering offence. The [tfae details of niunber of cases pendin^ jfhat has been alleged is fhat a new (1 before fhe Magistrate niaking false las nowhere been averred that wiftiout s' finally disposed of, however,] better petilaon, specifically st^ laken or any brder passed by| fheCr.P.C., ifany. iiwln'ili 'qTtRff ifTyS ^fiR^re ^?3i)Wf3I]^t |V[agistrate has directed any offence to ^iowers under Section 156 (3) of the ;ontents of ftie coniplauit, it is not ither exercised its power under Section taken cognizance of the complaint ring any ofEence. on fhe basis of averments made in fhe isue notice. The petition is accordingly wifh. Uberty to fhe petitioners to ffle tmg as to whetfaer cogmzance has been the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrsvastava Judge ..SWSSS^