\^\ {c:-" COURT OF CHHATriS&4RH ^T Cr.M.P.No.423 of 2009 Petltloncr Smt. Ishwari Bai W/o Shri Sada Ram, aaed about 45 years, Scheduied Trsbe- Gond, ftesident of Quarter No.514-C, Sector-3, R.K.Puram, New De'hi-110022. Versus Respondents 1. ,Md,KQmmuriddin S/o Md.Samsuddin, Age-47 year R/o Nagri, Thana Sihawa, Tahsij-Nagri, District bhamtari (C.0<) 2. Shri Kusha! Jain S/o Bhom Rai, Age-45 years R/o Nagri, Thana-Sihawa, Tehsil- Nagari, District-&hamtari (C©) 3. Sub Dlvislona! Magistrate, Nagri, Tahsi!- Nagri, District-Dhamtars (C,6.) 4. ' State of • Chho.ttisgarh^ throygh the CoiJector, bhamtari (C6). Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (SB: Hon'bte M.r. T.P. ShormQ, J.) Pre-sent: Mrs. Renu Kochar, counse! for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjeev K.Agrawai, Pane! lawyer for respondents No.3 and 4. OR.4L ORDER (Pssssd on 24th A^ust. 200°) 1. The petitioner has filed l+^is petition against the order dated 15.11.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Criminaj fteyjsJon No.248/89 affirming the order dated 10.6.89 possed by the Sub bivisiona! Magistrate, bhamtari, in Criminal Case No.161/85. 2. Learned counse! for the petitioner submits that one proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code') has been initiated and decided against Birju (brother-in-taw) of the present petitioner. The property was owned and possessed by mother of Birju and after death of Sonsir his daughter has succeeded \& & —2.- I^B property. Presently sh©is reslding at Delhi and not at vjjjage N-agrl Respondents No«l ond 2 have conceaied this fact and obtained the order in their favour and caused serious prejudiced to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 opposes the petition. 4 I have perused the order impugned and copy of other documents f»!ed on behalf of the petitsoner. 5. At the time of decision of the proceeding, the present petitioner was not party. Even she was not haysng any interest oyer the property and after death of Sonsir she succeeded the propert)^ Bijru was contested the petition and Sonsir ho.s ajso filed he-r repty. 6. Afte.raffordj.ng an opportunit/ of hearing to the parties, teamed Sub Divisiona! Magistrate and the revisionci! Court have passed the order. After iapse of 14 years, I do not flnd any ground ^for jnterference that too at the instance of a person who was not party to the proceedl.ng at the time of passing such order and she was not having any jnterest over the propert/. 7. ConseqyentSy^ the petition has no force, is tiabie to be cii^missed and it is hereby dlsmissed. Pending o.ppSications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge