^S!7:IHli:!::.^FS?^r'H!' HIQH COURT OF CHHATT^OARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. 384 Of 2008 SB ; Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J. Apoiicant Vs. Non-a.pplicant Rajkumar Mishra Sto, Lato Shri Ganesh Prasad Mishra, agad about 38 years, Occutation-Business R/o. Hateli Badi, Chi.',"ii," distt. Korea (C.G.) State of ChhaWsgarh-Through-District K/!agi3trateAmb!kapur(C.G.) ' APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE COD6 OF CRIMINAt. PROCEDURE.1973 Present:- Shri N.K. Chatenee, counsel for th®applicant. Shri vlnod Je'isam, Panel Sa'Ayer for She Stets. ORDER (Pssssd OR 21st August, 2008) This petition is for quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, in Criminal Case Mo. 246/08 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 379 & 201 of ths tndian Penal Code on the ground that in absence of prima facie materiai against the applicant for commission of offence, {he proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur would amount to abuse of prooess of the Court. 2, i have heard ieamed counsel for the parties and peresed the oopy of order sheet as also the copy of charge sheet. 3, Leamed counsel for the applteant submits that appticant who is party before the Family Court in Case No. 405/2005 against him F!R has Itfdged by the Reader of the Court that he has stolen the order sheet crf Case No. 405/2005, but he has not stolen so and proceeding on the basis of doubt, circumstantial evidence and the statement of fte cterk of the Court is not sufflcient against the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the petition is opposed on behaff of the non-applicant and submits that there is sufficient matenal to eonnect the appiicant with the crime in question. :;liif l5'(fgi;BT'nn''i'!T i.iairBir-" :•>".••;•;?;?! I 1 -^^ 4! EJ- 5. From perusal of the order sheet; it is prima facie shows that op. the date of incident i.e. 22.11.2007, one order sheet of Case No. 405/2009 has stolen in which especially the applicant was party to the proceeding and he was present inside the Court was interested in prolonging ttie case. On tie basis of doubt when he asked by the Court and requested to coroe in th® Court. he refused the same. 6. The evfdence collected by the prosecution is prima fecie sufficfent fer proceeding against the applicant for commission of offence panjshAte under Sections 379 and 201 of the Indian Penat Code and same is not abuse of process ofthe Court. 7. Consequently, ttie petitlon being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dtsmissed. T ' 0^7 T.P. Sharma Judge .J