^ ' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF C.G. AT BILASPUR CR.M:P.NO.<Z(o% _ OF 2010 StngleBencte APPLICANT/ Accused Smt. Sheela Verma, aged about 44 years, W/o Dr. Chandan Lal Verrna, R/o Rama Green City, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS NQN-APPLICANT/ Coniplainant „ ^fc) .o.--1 ^^^^ '^£"%^ ^vy^"^ Shrirang Bobde, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Sampat Rao Bobde, R/o Kashyap Colony, Police Station-City Kotwali, Tahsil 8s District-Bilaspur (C.G.) .^ APPLICATIQN UNDER SECTION 4^ OF THECQDE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 -<-'' ^'J^. fA^ t- fea^" m6KCOUI^^CMMi<1~TtS^R^^ Sirgle Bench ; Hon'ble ij%r. Justic®Pr'itinker Diwaker Cr.rt.P. APPLICANT/ Accused Smt; Sheela Verma NON-APPLICANT/ Shrirong Bobde Complainant Shri Vipin Punjabi, counsel forthe appllcant, Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Pcnel Lawyer for the State. PETmON UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CKtffii Heard on admission. Present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed agdnst th®impugned order dated 26.02.2010 pcssed by thlrd Addltional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Crimino! Reyision No. 29/2010 affirming the. order dated 15.1.2010 pa-ssed by Judicia! M.agistrate, Fir.st Ctas-s, Bilaspur in Complaint Case No. 283/2009. 2. ©rieyance of the pstitioner is that earlier cert'ain dlrections were issued by the Revisional Couri' vide order do.ted 19.2.2008 and without complying ttsis order, learned AA.o.gistrorte has proceeded *ith the case and has completed the examination and cross-examination of the defence wltness No. 2 Bhusho'.n ©iri©oswojni.He submits that the court betow has ignored the fact that the petitioner h.as not been giyen opportunity to confront with the witness in respect of the telephonic conversation which had taken place between the complo.inant, her brother ond defence witness namely Bhushan .. •Q Giri ©oswami. The order of the AAcgistrate and that of revisiona! court makes it ctear that full opportunity has been gronted to the petitioner for the cross-examination of the witness and the eoriier ordsr possed by the revisional Court' has been complied with. From the record it appears that only intention of the petitioner is to somehow linger on the matter. Order passed by the Revisionci Court- and the AAagistrate is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. ond is o.ccor'dingiy Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge 3. Petition is devoid of subs1 dismissed at the motion stage itseif.