APPLICANT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. 110/2007 Dr. Lovekesh Singh, S/o Lt. Mr. Love Singh Thakur, aged about 40 years, R/o. "Geeta Bhawan" Kududand. P.S.Bilaspur, Tahasil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. Mahendra Dubey @ Panda Guddu, S/o Not known, Proprietor of Dubey Local Transport, in front of Antulal Petrol Pump, Link Road, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Subhas Yadav, s/o Shri Gnesh Yadav, aged about 28 years. 3. Sanjay Yadav, s/o Shri Ganesh Yadav, aged about 30 years. [Both are proprietor of Sai Kripa Transport Company, Rajendra Nagar, beside Police Quarter, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur C.G. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Office Incharge Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (SB :Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Ms. Hamida Siddique, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. None for the non-applicants/respondents although served. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 7/8/2009) 1. This petition is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short <the code') for quashment ofthe order dated 15/12/06 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in criminal revision No. 252/06 affirming the order dated 4/7/06 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in unregistered criminal case whereby Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur has dismissed the compliant under Section 203 oftheCode. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that at the time of taking cognizance trial Court has not considered the case of the -2- ^3 coraplainant but has based the order impugned on the material collected by the police without affordihg an opportunity of the explanation to the petitioner and thereby committed an illegality causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of the registration of the case and taking cognizance court was required to consider the evidence and document produced on behalf of the petitioner. Copy of the order impugned and copy of other documents filed on behalf of the petitioner perused. It reveals that leamed Judifcial Magistrate First Class has directed the police for investigation in ternis of Section 202 (1) of the Code and after receiving the report of the investigation learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has proceeded under Chapter XV of the Code and finally dismissed the compliant under Section 203 ofthe Code. It reveal from. the niaterial produced on behalf of the petitioner that after receiving the report of investigation from police under Section 202 (1) of the Code learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has further proceeded for enquiry and after considering the statements recorded and documents collected by police dismissed the compliant under Section 203 oftheCode while dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code learned Judicial Magistarate First Class has not considered the ocular stateinent of the coniplainant and its witnesses and considered the document collected by the police against the coinplainant without affording any opportunity of explanation to the complainant, aforesaid order and the order of the revision Court is not sustainable. Consequently, this petition is allowed and order of both the courts below are hereby set aside. Trial Court is directed to make further inquiry in terms of Section 398 ofthe Code. ^ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge