ing IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CrJffl.^.Ng. 3^° OF 2010 PETITIONER Coniplainant Dr. Arvind Sharma S/o Shri Dayaram Sharma, aged about -44 years, R/oF- 22, Panchshil Nagar, Civil Nagar, P.S. Civil Line, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENTS <°)^°j ...^-^ b^;^ 9^T" ...••-"" ^~1; -QS k^A >$•" 1. l..*1*•• ^i^ ^l Smt. Kiran Sharma wife of Dr. Arvind Sharma, aged about- 38 years, R/o C/o Smt. Mitakshra Rao, W/o Late A.N.Rao, Vikrmaditya Villa, MIG 51, in front of Dicodil School, Housing Colony Kota, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Domanik Stuward S/o Samwel Stuward, aged about- 25 years, R/o Mahalekhakar Office section Gwalior (M.P.) PETLTION UNDERSECTIQN 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE <v c?' HIQK COURT OF CHHArT'ISGARH AT BILASPUR : HON'BLB MR. Jti'STICB DiWAKBR CR.M.?. SSO. A?PL3CjaT versus p>— & "•:F--",''! Si'''~c;'i~rr!C; LJ: L . ^LJ-V^i-L.L ^31iCi..t 11.. Smt. Kiran Sharnia 8s Another Shri Manqj Kuinar Sinha, counsel for the petitioner. PBTITieN UNDBR SECTION 483 05* THE CR.P.C. 07.06.2010] The oresent petition is direcied against the imDugned order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur in Cr. Rev. No. 136/09 arisina out.'of the order dated 13.8.09 oasssd by the J'.idicial 6'iagistrate First Ciass, Saipur. By the said order dated 13.8,09, leamed Magistrate has dismissed the complaiRt of the oetitioner a;:ter due aopreciation of the evidence. This order was unsuccessiuliv challenged bv the peiitioner before the revisiona! Court, The revisional Court has given the categorical finding thal the petitioner and ihe respondent No. 1 are the husband and wife and are litigatin'g i'or various matters. A bare reading of the comolaint iAnnexure P/21 reflects that the anplicant and the resoondents in oarticular, respondent N0.2 are tighting for various reasons. The complaint also makes it clear thai the isarties are levelina allesations and counter aliegations against ea.ch other. Once after aDoreciation 01 the coraplaint and che pther related documents, the leamed Magistrate has dismissed the complaint itself and the revisionai CourS has also affinned the said fiihdina. I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned, particuNriy in the petition fiied under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petition has no substance and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. .,-—-...-_—a:..—^ Pritinker Diwakar Judge