^^•:y^^^^^:^^^i/is (^ HlGMCOURTORCHHATnSGARH.BIl.aiiSPUR PEtlTIONERS; RESPONDENTS: GriminalMisc.PetitionNo.967of2010 1.DilipKumar,Age35ye£trsS/oSnriSuwa Ram Bramhe, 2. Ba$ant Kumar, Age 37 years S/o Shri Sakharam Gayakwad, • Both are R/Q Village Thokbhatti {Dhok- Bhatti), P.S. Kharora,Oistt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus ; ;. .' •. •''''••'::.''.;^:''T;-:..;,.:1^.- 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throygh th& Distt. Magistrate, Distt. Raipur(CiG;)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 2. Tulasram, Age 70 years, S/o Jtiacluram :.I.Satnami, ,., ; :: .. '"•!,:i''^^'-i:i^ 3. Gar)esh Ram, Age 33. yeafs, S/o Tulasram Satnami, . : 4. Chahdu @ Ramestiwar, Age 35 S/o * Tulasi Ram Satnami, . 5. Mohan, Age 32 years,S/6 Tylas Ram '--.:.Sainami,:.: • • '...-"-.,,''•, ':.:; :'; •'" ^ ^. Vishram, Age 65 years, S/o Foolchand Satnarni, • : : .,; :'.. ::. ;:1 :;•,:. :.-'•'1;' -"j'^" 7. Ashwani, Age 34 years, S/6 Narad ..» : :,1 ^ , '.; :, • :'ISatnami,.;:. ^::: . 1 1"::: l'..;. ,• .:.: ,'1, '•'' 8. Keju Ram, Age 35 years, S/c> Ganesh .:.-':..Ram:Satnami, :'',' :.^,::/,Y'1:, •' •1.:'1' :'1':'. - ^^^^^9 .'^::::':..;;Satnami,..; .' ;;,:.',^:.',:;:',:.: ..-^ ^•"' •"" ::•'•• .'•;.'-.'• ' "•' -::^ • ' ","'•.-"'. ' '.:' ' .': •..^ ..: '•••'•"' •:' . '•.•'^ ^ .-''••'••:• ' ' ' •••:.'•'• '.. .. "'"".' ':•'.'"•."•.•• • • ^'.-'' • '•'• 10. Dukalu, Age 42 years, S/o Sahukar •:: Satnami,' . ~ ;. :1' , ' :1-;.'-, ;-::''::::' ',;. 11.lshwar,Age25years,S/oSupelSatnami, 12. Supel Satnami, Age 40 years, S/o Dhumman Satnami, All the aboveare R/p Villa^^^ (Dhok-Bhatti), P.S. Kharora, Distt. Raipur .(C.G.)::.1. :' • ,.::.^.---..';1:^^ ?{ApplicationunderSecti6n4826ftheCriminalPr6cedureCode} Present: ., ;'::,,.' 1:1 •..-,' ... :;,/: ;,, ^.;'' ;:''^'' ,'/1:. ^:', Mr. G.P. Singh, counselfor ttiepetitioners. Mr. UX.Singh Chandel, Panel LawyerfortheState/respondentNo-1^^ SinaleBehch: Hon'bleMr.T.P. Sharma;*) :(— -J ORALORDER (3-1-2014) 1. Heard. 2. This is petition under Sectiori 482 of the Code of Criminal ProGeclure, 1973 (for short'tHeCode')forquashrTientoftheorderdated 22-101-2010 passed by the Special Jydge (Atrocities), Raipur in Crjmjnal Revis^ No,106/2Q10 affirmjngtheorclerdated 15-3-2010 passedbytheGhief ^"JudicialiMagistr^, Raipurin anunregistered complaintcasec^ 2006,^wherebytl^GhiefyudicialMagistrateliasdisrnisgedthe;e6mpla|n^ unaerSection203oftheCode,filedbythepetitionershereih.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 3. As pertheorderirnpugned and copiesofother docum^nfe, oriaceourit^^o^^ suspicious deatK of Lata Bai, daughter of Kewal Ram,the petitiQriers have filed complaint Befbre the trial Couri: for ttie offence puhte underSections302&201:oftliel.P.C.ThetrialC6urthasexamined seven wjthesseS. After CTnsiderirlg the statements thetrialCourthasarrivedatfindingthatstatementsofthewitnesseSare notpnmafaciesufficientfortakingcognizance againstrespondentsNo.2 to12t rein,(rfth&c^neepunisBableunderSe(rtiorre302&2Q1ofthe I.P.C. and thereby <Jjsmissed the complaint under Section 2Q3 o^the CQdewhiGfrWasGhallengedbeforetHerevisionalCourtandby^rming the order passed by the trial Court, the revisional Court has dismissed '-the.reyision. :• '. 1 i- .' 1',1 •1 .'. , .': • .,.•;./:'1:;-1., 4. LeamSd counsel forthe petitioners vehemently argued that Latabai died in sySpicious condition, ttie police has not investigated the matter fully and/thereTore.thepetitionershavefjled^oFnplaintbefQrethetrialCourt, but the frial Gourt has not considered fhe statements of the witnesses examinedundeF Section 202-204 oftheCoye. ^ 5. Qn the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted thatthe petitionerswere having ample opporfunity to examine the witnesses and the trial Gourt has examined the statements of witne^ses produced CHI brihalf of thecomplainants and pn the basjs^^ statemerits, the trial Court has not fbund prima facie case^ for takirig cognizanGe, fhereby the trial Court has clismissed the conipiaint ynder SeGtion 203 6f the Code. The trial CQurt has notcommitted any illegally in dismissing thecomplatrit and the same has ngtttly been affinne^l by Itierevisiohal Gourt. «aBiSS» »! 6. Thisis petition under Section 482 of the Code. Scope 6f interf6rencein termsofSection 482 ofthe Code is limited. Power under Seetioh482 of theGodeisexceptionalinnatureandshouldbeysedSRaringly, 7. The order impugned and the Qrder passed by the trial C&yrt clearly reveal that statements of the wjtnesses produced on behalf sf the petitiQners herein, recorded under Sectiohs202-204^0^ displbse anyfact relatihg tocommissiori Qfoffenee byrespohdehts No:2, to 12 herein. Ttierefore, both the Gourts below have dismissed the eomplaint. 1 do ndtfind any illegalityintheorderimpugnedancltheorder ofthetrial Courtrequiring any interferehce in terms ofSeGtion482 oMhe Code. The petition isliableto bedismissed and itis herebydismissed in ^ limin'e. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge