HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.413 of 2010 Smt. Saraswati Thakur W/o Rakesh Thakur, aged about 41 years, R/o Qtr. No.10 F, Street No.86, Near Durga Manch, Sedtor—6,‘ Bhilai, District_ Dui'g v' ' (C.G.) Versus Rakesh Thakur S/o Shyam Lal Thakur, aged about 47 years, R/o Chaukhadiapara, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ‘{/ \\. {Petition‘under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure} resent: , Mr. Saurabh Dangi, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the respondent. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (4—1—201 1) 1 . ‘ Heard. ‘ 2. By this petitionunder Section 482 of the Code ofVCriminaI Procedure, ', piner s cle legality a pri of t rr da —4—201 asse by t udicial Misat Frs lass, Ranago in rmal omplaint Cae No.304/21, wherby the Cort belw ha take ognia th ffenc agns petior heri a registered ff pnihale undr Section 50 d with Stion 4 f he P. . earne couel fo te eitioner submits tha at te instc o th Ld ns r h pt t h ane f e 'etitiner rein rm Comlait Case o.08 ha een po he, Ciinal pn N5/96 s b eistd reoet hrein he ye 1996 nd t rgere against the spndn e in t ar a he repndent‘as rolonging th cse fore the tril C. Terore, he it ere has filed etitio under Section 4 e CrP bean .M.P.No36/20 n ch ide ord te -3-200 cordinat Bench of his Court has directed for onclion of ria wh s ms from te n e ing e. A the sd oer pased by h Co h n u mive d sow p e a be a ourt hef t petioner hin pn 82 of th C rig Cr.101 i whi v er dad 31 a oe t cus tl itin ix onth h ext dat of hear of the cas fter ai rd s a coordinate Benc of this urt, wit a obliqe ot an ras he petitoner herein, the complainant/respdn hei has filed two complai ases ang Criminal Comlaint P 19F3 the ettio ha halnged nd proety he ode ted 120 pd he J agtre it C jndan Ciin C s 00 e u o s n cznce of e oe ait the tine en nd oence usb e 0 rea ec 3 o t IC to has t i onet ren nt c beri p Case \ Nos.142/2010 and 143/2010 before the Coun of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, ahd again on same set of facts and evidence third complaint i.e. Criminal Complaint Case No.304/2010 has been registered against the petitioner herein before the same Court. Learned counsel vehemently argued that facts and alleged act relating to the aforesaid two complaints and the present complaint are one and same. Therefore, in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Poona‘m Chand Jain and another v. Fazru, (2004) 13 SCC 269, second complaint or subsequent complaint is not maintainable. . On the other hand, learnedrcounsel for the respondent opposes the petition and submits that the two previous complaints are based on the act committed by the petitioner and use of criminal force at the‘time of emmission of offence, and the present complaint is based on the defamatory publication made by the petitioner herein. Facts and act committed by the petitioner in both the cases (previous two complaints and the instant Complaint) are not one and same. Therefore, both the complaint cases are maintainable. I have perused the order impugned and copy of the complaint. Definitely, present complaint is based on the alleged written defamatory complaint made by the petitioner herein before the Human Rights authorities and based on documents. Both the complaints (previous two complaints and the instant complaint) are not one and same. Therefore, t ,i" he instant complaint is maintainable under the law. l do not find any scope of interference in the present case, terms of Section 482 of the CrPC. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. x/ Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of: 5d]. 1y. 5mm? ‘udge Soma c . . .