^SRQIQ Benck IN TJSB HON'BLE HIGH CQURT OF CHHArFISGARH AT BILASPOR (0.6.1 Cr. M.P. No. /2010 PETITIONER Meena Bai, W/o.Doinan Jaiswal, aged about 30 years, Caste Kalar, R/o. Vfflage- Tamruwa, P.S. Pipariya, TahsH- Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) RESPONDKITS ^ y\^ >€-<^ <;-^-"\ ^•^ :i% VERSUS 1. Stete of Chhattisgarh, Through: S.H.O. P.S. - Pipariya, Distt. Kabirdham, (C.G.) 2. Vijay Kalar S/o. Goverdhan Kalar, aged about 35. 3. Parwati Bai W/o. Vijay Kalar, Aged about 33 years, Both are R/o. Village-Tamrula P.S. Pipariya, Tahsil- Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.GJ PEtmOVl UNDBR SECTION 482 OP CR.P.C. i ^-sf ^rrai^r, ^ft^T?^, .^•.y...l:.!w:.^.^>i.i^.0. ( •y S'iR^S 'qa TyTRT ^'nsn'iSi??^?; SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 29-08-2011 Shri Ravish Verma, counsel for tfie petitioner. Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawye 'kl'i'fri'fl'! •WT^ffii '~SVS ^fg^R ^•3?RpTe-:T?I for the State/respondent No.1. Shri M. K. Bhaduri, counsel for r^spondents No.2 & 3. Heard. This petition has been filed ag^rieved by order dated 12-07-2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sessic^ns Judge, Kabirdham, in Sessions Case No.1/2010. l Learned counsel for the petition filed a complaint before the Magistrajte alleging commission of offence under Section 294, 506, 456, 323/34 & 427 of the I.P.C. against the respondents No.2 & 3, which was disnjiissed by the Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate, •r submitted that the petitioner had a revision was preferred. When the case was listed on 12-07-2010 befcjre the Revisional Court, a Junior counsel was present in the Court and ^tated that the senior counsel is not available, ai.id therefore, he is not in a fjosition to proceed with the matter at that stage. Thereafter, the learned Plsvisional Court has dismissed the revision itself without granting any ortportunity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionei opportunity ought to be granted to th merits. He further submits that on the is a victim, and therefore, one ^ petitioner to satisfy the Court on |date when the revision petition was dismissed, there was a condolence ijneeting held in the District Bar to mourn the sad demise of Shri Lalchan|J Bodhra, father of Shri Premchand Jain, Senior Advocate and copy of re^olution of condolence is placed on record as Annexure P-4. Learned coi|nsel for the petitioner submits that ^SV, iM-l'WI'W— ES/140—2/2011—1,50,000. .-saa' -N ~r 1 ff '3-S[^{FTi?Tq,.»Tti'"-?^,M^T?TT!; R5!j'%TO% 3T^T TTO^ (1i?f3^*-?) Ii<Tp ^r^iiifi- •2- absence of Senior Counsel, is therefol1'e, bonafide and it was not a case that the counsel avoided to attend (he Court proceedings. It is lastly submitted that the present is not a|casethat the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the matter s^nd repeatedly no appearance was made before the Court, and therefore[ one opportunity of contesting the matter on merits ought to be granted. On the other hand, learned courjsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3 submitted that the Court below ^/as fully justified in dismissing the revision petition, because the Junior 4ounsel, who had appeared in the Court, expressed that as senior coun^el is not available, the arguments could not be advanced. Learned coun^el for the respondents submits that in these circumstances, the learned Rej/isional Court was left with no other option except to dismiss the revisiot, and it cannot be said that by injustice has been caused to the dismissal of the revision petition, any petitioper. The impugned orderdated 12-0'i; was present in the Court and informed not available. A copy of the resolution <|if condolence has also been placed on record, which shows that on 12-07-3 District Bar to mourn the sad demise Shri Premchand Jain, Senior Advocat parties that the petitioner was not inti petition on merits, and that, on number not made or adjournment was frequenl no appearance at all was made. The 1-2010 shows that the junior counsel e Court that the senior counsel is J010, there was a condolence in the |of Shri Lalchand Bodhra, father of ^. It is also not a case any of the ^rested in prosecuting the revision t?f occasions either appearance was (ly sought. It is also not a case that Ipetitioner, who is victim of alleged ^tWTtipltaF—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ';:i[rara^?, s^f^pT?, fe^pp; 'y w%' ^) 3n^i'^ft;:!fe; 2?nsnt?r5OT^ Tumane i<- ', •qTT?iS ^ '-S^t Tfe^K ^; sffgr s~"r criminal act, filed a complaint, which w^s dismissed, against which, revision petition was filed. - j Taking into consideration the aljoresaid facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court.dismissal of (he revision petition without allowing the petitioner tq contest the matter on ijnerits has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is well-settled prjnciple of law Ithat as far as possible, all attempts should be made to allow the petitioner |o contest the matter on merits. In the result, the petition is a?owed. The impugned order dated 12-07-2010 (Annexure P-1) is hereby sjet aside. The matter is remanded to the Revisional Court to consider the decide thesame inaccordance with law. revision petition on its merits and J—- — »."•"-""s;"""""'" Judge tllOflil fi;n<l I!(«IMO,IW.IK'li.l—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.