Siggh germii IN T§$ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.) f,”Cwmmvuk Misc-o m. petition No. //~/7 OF 2006 (Petition Under section £ 48z 0f Criminal Procedure Ccde) PETITIONER smta Meena Gupta,wi£e of Radha Raman Gupta. aged abcut 41 years.0ccupation— service(Teacher) Government Primary Scheol,Kaseeya Police station— Gharghoda District—Raigarh( C. G. ) : state of Chhattisgarhwhrough the Distri/ct Magistr ate ,Raigarh( C. G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION %§2 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ./ RESPONDENT » ~ J: ‘ XI—HC—22 mmww nsel for the applicant. vocate General for the $tate. 21 .02.200T Shri Awadh Tripathi, Cou Shri G.K. Beriwal, Dy. Ad Heard on admission. This is a petition filed qfider Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ated 14/3/2005 passed by the Second Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminai Revision No.191/2004. The aforesaid Criminal Revision was filed against the ordgr dated 19/7/2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda in Qriminal Case N 542/2003. it appears that a Crimina Case under Section 174 of IPC was fried against the applicant making al attendance in compliance of the investigation of certain offence. applicant tiled an application for an application under Section 9‘ calling the records of Criminal sheet was tiled against the appli ant under Sections 500 and 509 of IPC. The proceedings were. prayed ti alleged commission of the ma under Sections 500 and 509 of criminal case is a repetition committed during the course okenquiry proceedings of the earlier crime registered with the Police. An application under Se on 91 of Cr.P.C. was tiled on the ground that if the records of Criminal C se No.240/2002 wouid be called, it will Procedure against the order cl kd’ditional Sessions Judge. gations that she has failed to make her notice issued to her during the course of ‘n the said criminal proceedings, the dismissal of the case and she also tiled ' V of the Code of Criminal Procedure for ase No.240/2002, in which. the charge > be quashed on the ground that for the n offence, Criminal Case No.240/2002 ‘PC is also pending and this subsequent nthe alleged act said to have been tecfe‘a)’ XI-HC-22 W7 W 1 ..... x 200 " ; ‘ . .W mmww ' WW#WW ! L aammm § i make clear a" thil%Igs and further there would be ;no necessity of ! prosecution of this dase, beca use all formalities have been shown in that case Learned Magistrate diamrssed the aforesaid application by order dated 19/7/2004 eaymg that rthe proceedings of Criminal Case No 240/2002 is of different na ure and this proceeding under Section 174 oMPC is of different nature s the same Is for alieged contravention of non-compirance of the notice Issued to the accused/apphcant So far as the application under Sectl n 91 of CrP C is concerned learned Magistrate recorded a findrn that there Is no necessmy of calling that criminal proceeding because it has no relevance wrth the facts of this case l Against the said order of dlsmissal of these two applications the aforesaid Criminal ReViswn was fled which was dismissed by the Sessions Court lt is against at order this petition has been fled by the petitioner i l Admittedly, a !Crimrnal ase vide No.240/2002 is ‘pending against the applicant under §ections 0 and 509 of IPC and that case has to be decided on its own merit Thi matter under Section 174 of IPC has been fled on the alleged breach mmitted by the applicant by not attending and responding to the no ice issued to her for the purpose of Investigation in the aforesai crime, for which. ultimately, the charge sheet was fled and Criminal ase No 240/2002 was registered Needless to say thatt is case under Section 1740f IPC Vide No 542/2003 is totally on a differ nt footing and this has no iconnectton With the earlier Criminal Case T e causesof actions of both the cases are teases XI—HC—22 mgmaxw j ('3, ‘ magmagfg‘f‘w entirely different arid this subsequent Criminal Caseéfor the alleged breach of not atteniding/responding to the notice during the course of investigation cannot be quashed on the ground that in l .t Cringinai Case for the mother offence i the i vestigation was v doneand i ‘- Lis already pending before the Court r The Courts below hav rightly taken this View that these are the mtndependent proceedings and have rightly rejected the contentions of the applicant r E So far as application nder Section 91 of Cr PC for calling the records of Criminal Case No 240/2002 is concerned l do not fnd any reason to say that those rec rds would be relevant for dismissal of this subsequent Criminal Case oreover if some documents of the said Criminal Case are required far this case the applicant is well Within the rights to obtain the copies of those documents and fle the same in _, Criminal Case. No.5d2/2003. The Courts below have rightly taken this viewithat the entire record of that Criminal Case was not required for the Edecision of this subsequent Criminail Case, which is based on altogether a different cause of action. There appears to be no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the two Courts be:low warranting interference under Siection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. V‘ The petition has not merit and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/= §im§i Kumar §mha o