Ififelfe ^tfe thlkft |<b InMbK P uyp j.i hPlhlhL. InMby Olk >h >\W» d> klbb (?y |< frl.ilblhi- JflM&y Ollt m5 IfeyaUi £h OtOZ'Ol'80-Alky I&^y ^ OIOZ/9ZZ- 0'EOfi oyioii&OMieoy^ ^ ^ &j^i^y& o^ o^p: Jft i^itbii^ by.t.Uf -: oftOKa^ zsfr-iMfe UJ»P ^h ^ii^ip {tr^^'t"""""v'M'- (obo&) iin£iA-uyy ':!st ^ ^ ^ 'kdKblMjlf* S^lnjk IPln] |M3 4ftllit (UiOfl- (j)lbMUPi/(b>>^l-lf> ^^ My ('ililty^fl) Iby^fb-liain) 'iytaa-j^aB ^y^-ibua 'y'yMy "^ib^s -D»iby -: ^IK? ^ hWMh. j^ia Q ^& s& l&y sittfi i^ii o^-iBy'ifcy Mh&ini^ la.Mfey/'fe^^lte •^"^•-Oigofi oyiOiAoMieo^ (oyio2i) ^tMIAy Q|»n<n hl<>IN^ baft b^lk -^V^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR -!)KB :Ttt .iESR S.B.s HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN^HRIVASTAVA, J. y.. -^': PETITIONER RESPOHDBNT Cr.M.P,No,219 of 2011 Rajkumar Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh Petition under Sectlon 482 of the Cr.P.C. Appearance: Shri Rajkumar Mista-a, petitioner in person. Shn Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon21.4.2011) Heard on admission. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashmg cnminal proceedings m Criminal Cose No. 106/11, pending in tfae Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ainblfeapur. 3. The petitioner ai^ued that even though this Court had directed the trial Court to conclude the trial on or before 31st December, 2010, the trial has not been concluded. The next submission of the petitioner is that from the evidence, which has come on .y -2- record during fhe course of tnal, particularly, in view of the statenient made by Smt. Rita Choubey, fhe entire proceedings deserve to be quashed, as furfher proceedings are abuse of fhe process of law. 4. Vide order dated 8.10.2010 passed in Cr.M.P. No.778/10, fhis Court had directed fhe trial to be concluded on or before 31st Decemtier, 2010. Later on, this Court extended fhe said tune vide another order dated 30th March, 2011. The order-sheets filed by fhe petitioner show fhat after recordkig evidence, the niatter was listed for fmal arguments on 1.4.2011, but, on fhat day, fhe petitioner filed number of docuiaents and also moved an application. In fhese circumstances, fhe Court granted last opportunity to the petitioner to Gnally argue the case on 13th April,2011. From the aforesald order-sheets, it is clear that on account of petitioner's submitttng new documents and filing some application, fhe inatter has been adjoumed for final hearing on 13th April, 2011. In this view ofthe matter, I am. not inclmed to entertam this petition on fhe ground fhat the ta-ial Court faUed to decide the matter within tihie time stipulated by fhe Court. The ofher submission that m view of fhe evidence of Rita Choubey, (he proceedings are liable to be quashed, in my opmion, as fhe evidence tn fhe case has already been concluded and fhe matter was listed for final hearing before fhe trial Court, but, was adjoumed on account offiling new documents by fhe petitioner, I - 3 - am not inclined to go into fhat aspect. It would be open for fhe petitioner to raise aU the submissions, including the grounds which are raised before fhis Court against his prosecution. 5. Taldng into consideration (hat the case was adjoumed on 1.4.2010 on account of documents filed by the petitioner, fhe direction giwen by this Coiitt to conclude fhe ti-ial by 31st March,2011 requtres further extension to enable the trial Court to decide the matter. " 6. Accordingly, it is directed that the tnal Court shall decide the matter linally on or before 30th AprU, 2011. This dtrection, however, wiU be subject to the cooperatlon by fhe petitioner. 7. Wifh fhe aforesaid observations, the petition is tlnaUy disposed of. 8. A copy of fhis order be sent to fhe concemed trial Court for compliance. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge \^"' Pcavees. ^.