IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l CR.M.P. N0. OF 2011 APPLICANT Bhanwar Das Narang S/o Late Ra.mchand Narang, aged about 44 years, R/o Village Bhuruwadih Khurd, Police Station - Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh; Through: District Magistrate Raipur, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Balkaran Verma S/o Khamman Lal Verma, aged about 47 years, R/o Near Gayatri Hospital, Danganiya Raipur, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Shailendra Kumar Shukla S/o Nand Kumar Shukla, aged about 47 years, R/o Suman Colony, Arang, Police Station - Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4. Anupnath Yogi S/o Gajendranath Yogi, aged aboiit 48 years, R/o Shyam Bazar, Arang, Tahsil Arang, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) r > APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OFTHE CODE OF o CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 wffvn a»*nq» 3:=T ^ww^, &^\ww, hwvy. . _ c<i^'-^i^o •.&&o ]_li•ff^200 an^r^f^; (l?fdsi<l?) ^il^l W 1<-) TOT 011^1 a>*i WIIW ^lftd StI^I <M<llCTiflTT *11*1<^f'^ ^S^ <^11^U iTSlfilH 311^1 SB : Hon'bie Shri Manjndra Mohan Shrivastava. j. 16-12-2011 Shri Shivendu Pandya, counse Heard. This petition under Section 1 for the petitioner. 482 CrPC has been fiied assaiiing the correctness and validity of order dat^d 17/05/2011 passed by the revisionai Court whereby the order dated 16/11/201,0 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the compiaint has been affirmed. The petitioner preferred a coi|npiaint under Section 200 CrPC against the respondents 2 to 4 aiieging commissi 420, 467, 468, 34 of IPC and Sec ^cheduied Tribes (Prevention of Atrc In the compiaint, it was aiieged that the ceroptfflnant and he was abusedl false complaint was prepared agal on of offence under Section 294,506,120-B, :ion 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduied Castes and icities) Act, 1989 (for short 'ihe Aci of 1989'). the respondents 2 to 4 came to the ofnce of intimidated and caste words were used and nst him. The iearned Magistrate recorded preiiminary statements of the compi^inant and his witnesses and thereafter vide order dated 16/11/10 dismissed the "offence is made out. Aggrieved by somplaint holding that no case for registering the said order, revision was preferred which •has aiso been dismissed giving rise t<> the insiant petition. Learned counsei for the petiii have committed serious iliegality in into serious miscamage of justic^ commission of offence against respoi| entered into assessment of evidencel oner contended that both the Courts beiow dismissing the compiaint which has resuited because even though a ciear case of idents 2 to 4 was made out, the Courts beiow ignoring that at the initial stage of registration of^ofrence and taking cognizance, r^eiiculous examination is not necessary. He flW^ftil^-y ^"Itci^, Uol-li^ll*—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. aii^i w ft-fi'* ?rar<w^I ff)H NIHCW W^l^ '^SS "i)l'41M^, afll-H'IS, fs)dl'Hy,< .£r.'!^>..:...l/^o.:..S.&.S/.'.l. t) W( 200 sf^v TR^ (•^qfgsi^tf) TOIIWHfttI 3)I^T - ^, further submitted that the statem^nts of complainant and his witnesses cieariy make out ingredients of alieged offences and therefore, the magistrate ought to nave taKen cognlzance registering |»ffence,feaving the veraciiy of the statements / evidence to be tested during the coprse oftriai. The learned Magistrate h|as taken into consideration the complaint, statement or compiainant as also t\\s witnesses. Taking thosestatements as it is, it has been recorded that in view <}f the statement of the compiainant himseif that at the time when he was abused t>r caste words were used, he alone was there along with other accused persor^ recorded that the ingredients of off' the Act of 1989 are not made out ^nce under Section 294 and Section 3 (1) ('x) of petitioner, as stated in the compi^ learned Magistfatfehas aiso taken enquiry team had submitted reportj Magistr^ie came to ihe conciusior^ cognizance is made out against th^ in the case of the compiainant. in rsvision aiso, the learne^i the aforesaid circumstances and trt ch^<i41*i *i)*idT'^1^t <Ff^$R ^'aifaiTan^r in the chamber of the office. it has been jbecause the piace of incident is not within the public view. The Magistrate has af^o taken into consideration that the presence of respondents 2 to 4 was in conn^ction with enquiry inio compiaints aga'inst the [inf and the preliminary statements itself. The ^ito consideration that in the matter of compiaint against the compiainant, the peti^oner and respondents 2 to 4, as member of on the basis of which, the order of withhoiding increments waspassed and sev^rai months thereaner, compiaint was iodged. Taking.jnto consiaeration the afor^said material and circumstances, ihe iearned that no case for registering ofrence and taking respondents because of serious discrepancies revisiona! Court had taken into consideration e discrepancies in me case or tne compiainant. Both the Courts beiow have kept iiji mind estabiished facts and circumstances that ^iw-fl-ii ^^l-i) ^utitWi, <»-oi'iFqni<<— FS/14&—2/2011—1,50,000. ^ 4t: It .\^, 'OOO'OS*!—TTOZ/Z—O^l/Sd— •f'Ut^U*^^ <h>ia>iftlAk,ys(t>b^>wii! aSpnf BABisBAuqs ueqo]/\[ EJpumBpi -/PS ^?" •pessiiusip ajoisjeui si uoiiged ©41'Od-iQ ui unoo siui Aq a3usjeije}U! BUUUBJJBM 'eo jo sseoojd sui 10 esnqe jo AiiieBsii! ou si ejei •uiiq isuieBe Aiieusd suryiiM ABMB op o} i| eill 'jsueejeift suiuoiu lejeAss pue pesoduij ieq} }Q siseq 94} uo pue ^inB puno^ seM e| siuieiduioo uo Aiinbus ue peionpuoo peu ^ lisyip MDJIC t^ >l?)to]> IJ>>S] j, fdhlh >.[bU]bltb ;9j? uogoes jepun sjeMod 10 esiojexe !}sn[ 10 eBeujeosiiu ssei uonui 'MG! u 'ynoo siiji y> uoiuido eui u; iieiduioo 84) U}JM ino suieo jeuoiiged SEM Aiieued |B}ueLuued3p 'Aiinbus •UOIUM ui lueuieiduioo eui isuieBe oi z s}uepuodsej pue jeuogiied eui i^iiEj^j&imiaa iideaQ AUtifi li^UE U»tt ifclLy IU> liyic (labbl:]bt.)U»kh l^Ug 00? IA, J tlaihtti lUhlh -iT7'<i"^"^"";T;n""Twi"^)"""" '' >T;ftlUbJ '?)|,ft|M®'hWMh^ Ja.S. s ^ 9 Vsss I ,. ;g