@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.LP. (CR) NO. 7137 OF 2011 PETITIONER Subhash Chandra Shanna S/o Shri Shyam Sundcr Shanna, aged about 46 years, R/o 21 Lohja Nagar, Mowa, Police Station Pandri, Dishict Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1, Statc of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Principal Secretary, Home” Department, D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.). 2. The Superintendent of Police, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Special Investigation Cell, Through: the O$ce—in—Charge, Trailic Head Quarter Premises, Kalibadi, Raipur (C. G.). 4. Police Station Palari Through; the Station House Ohicer, District Raipur(C.G.). 5. Police Station Pandn‘, Through: the Station House O$cer, District Raipur (C.G.). 6. Police Station Sarsiva, Through: Stan'on House Oihcer, District Raipur (C.G.). Police Station CID, Through: Station House O$cer, District Raipur (C.G.). 8. M/ s 7 Seas International Firm, (Registered under the provision of Finn and Societies Registration Act), Through; its Palmer Adesh Verma, Choubey Cclny, Raipur (C.G.). 9. Adesh Verma, S/o not known, aged about 36 years, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). 10. Mikki Shrivastava, S/ o Umashankar Shrivastav, aged about 35 years, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Partner of M/s 7 Seas International Finn, Raipur (C.G.). 11. Pooja Verma, W/o Adesh Verma, aged about 32 years, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Partner of M/s 7 Seas International Firm, Raipur (C.G.). o years, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Farmer of M/s 7 Seas International Finn, Raipur (C.G.). 13. Royal Vision Care Marketing and Services Pvt. Ltd. (A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956), through: Managing 12. Smt. Anushka Shrivastav, W/ Mikki Shrivastava, aged about 33 (2+\ Director, M. Velayutha Kumar, Head Quarter 26/4, Fixst Main Street, Vannamalai Nagar, Bye— pass Road, Madurai, Tamilnadu 14. Shli Ashok Joshi, inspector, Special Investigation Cell, mc Head Quarter Pxemises, Kalibadi, Raipur(C.G.) 15. Shn‘ H.C. Jadhav, Assistant Sub— Inspector, Special Investigation Cell, Tra$c Head Quarter Premises, Kalibadi, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. ’I‘.P.Sharma, J.) Presentz— Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate with Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State. onnER (passed on 30/ 11/201 1) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petiu'oner has prayed for quashment of criminal proceedings K pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in criminal case Nos. 723/2011, 1516/2011, 1560/2011 8o 387/2011 against the petitioner. 2. Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate With Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State are heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that High Court is competent to quash the proceeding either in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the pen'n’oner placed reliance in the matter of i , Mls Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magstrate and Others reported in 1998 SC 128 in which Supreme Court has quashed complaint on the ground that no material has been shown. that appellant-accused Were either 1 manufacturer or holding licence for manufacture of oEending beverage. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance in 1he matter of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhqian Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in which Supreme Court has held that Court is not required to go into question of liability and prove of allegation made in First Information Report'and matter can be examined only by concerned Court after entire material placed before it on a through investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on the same cause of action Court has registered 4 criminal cases and thereby committed an illegality. On the basis of charge-sheet med before it Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognimnce, still Court has not framed charges against the petitioner. Without any material in favour of the petitioner it could not be presumed that Court has committed an illegality. Still it is open to the petitioner to tile appropriate petition before Chief Judicial Magistrate supported by documents to show that prosecution has not collected prima facie material for taking cognizance against him. Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to pass the order in terms of Sections 239 85 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 instead of filing appropriate petition, peu‘tioner has filed present peh‘tion that too relating to 4 different cause of action. As held in case of Mls Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another (Supra) in absence of prima facie material complaint can be quashed. In the present case Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance on the basis of material placed before it therefore it can not be held that there is no pvima facie material against petitioner. Case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another (Supra) is distinguishable on the ground offacts. In case of State of Hargana and Others (Supra) petitioner may mdress his grievances befom the ChicfJudicial Magistrate by iiling appropriate application suppomed by documents. Consequently, X do not &d any gmund for interference at this stage. Petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/— T. P. Shanna Judge