IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M. P.No. ^^ /10 PETITIONERS: .v^^? ^^•y^^'" "'— "^ ^-y^ ^r^" "*** fiy- lv'.' M </ -""^^ 1. MAHENDRA CHAUDHARI, S/0 GODURA.M , A/0 42 YEARS R/0 JAISTAMBH CHOWK, GHARGHODA; DISTRICT RAIGARH (C.G.) ! 2. SACHIN @ SONU GUPTA, S/0 RANJIT GUFTA, A/A 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESSMAN, R/0 BARGHAT, GHARGHODA, TAHSIL GHARGHODA, DISTRICT RAIOARH (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT: 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH DlSTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAIGARH, TAHSIL AND DlSTRICT R<UGARH(C.G.) •3c PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CMMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 OT^l W K.W wnaiKBWtCT; ^. 3^ -^WM^, ®1liy'|(o,faidl-'-l^i _^_ C".^.?- ^f^)>?L|9)2^|o w^ WTTT5R? (' TOITOT :Efe sn^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohafh^hrivastava. J. Crinlinal 10-11-2010 Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, ci Shri RajendraTripathi, Pan< Heard. This petition is directed agaii Sessions Judge, Raigarh in order dated 12/01/10 passed by| Gharghoda, Raigarh rejeoting the| 239 Cr.P.C. for diseharge has beer Leamed counsel for the pej the prosecution is bogus and frivc implication as all the witnesses, w| be recorded by the polioe under which has been placed on record been stated that they have not s( have been recorded by exerting p< learned counsel for the petitioner the complainant-Chhotu is implicating the appticant. Leamed| material to support the al miscarriage ofjustioe ifthe petitiont On the other hand submissil contents of frie oharge sheet ar^ proceedings against the petitionet made out. He further submits thl conceilned ^r^<i1i ^t^^i ^ T-s^ <f^^i< ^TaiRnsTi^T unset for the petitioner. Lawyer for the State. Sfection (ist orderdated 26/07/10 passed by the Revision No.44/10 by which the the Judicial Magistrate First Class, petitioner's application under Seotion confirmed. jtitioner argued that the entire oase of Mous and is a case of motivated false tose case diary statements are said to 161 Cr.P.C., have given affidavit before the Court below in whioh it has 'en the incident and their statements tessure on them. Further submission of that in so far as accusation made by ), he has definite motive of falsely lcounsel submits that with such a weak |is in the charge-sheet, it would be ir is subjected to such frivolous trial. )n of iearned State oounsel is that ifthe taken on its face value, a case for for alleged commission of offence is at whether the diary statements were ^ t:. ^y ? /? •w^^' 3if?W W !<-( OTI 3(!^[ siiro \-- Lscmi ^^ ~;W^fS,'S^WTS, WV.W^ ^r.^.^.^'gMS/Zon) 3lA?T 'tiRT (^??3^.^) ?^(iWfltei3II^t .1 qaqfepft1? qitR^ 4 fS^ ^R?R ^aifa'Taii^r gjven by those witnesses and whetller they were pressurize to give such statements or not is-a matter of evid^nce. Bhubendra From the FtR and case diaryl Ram Jeevan Jharia; Pappu that the applicant caught hold of Chtjiotu, The affidavits which have been plao^( said to be of such a nature as to their statements were recordaj untier evidence and until those witnesses below, jt is too eariy and rather prerjiature contend that those witnesses art prosecution. tt cannot be ignored has lodged F.1. R. and in his casf commission of offence by the applics^it. statements of Chhotu @ Ramratan, Chauhan, it has been stated i, abused and also assautted him. ^d on reoord at this stage cannot be the pcosecution to an end. Whether pressure or not, is a matter of ^ppear and depose before the Court on the part of the petitioner to not supporting the case of the the victim namely Chhotu himself diary statement, he has aneged thbt 4m thbt In view of tfie aforesaid the order ofthe Court below nor learned counsel for tfie petitioner process of law and the petitioner woijild petitioner is subjected to trial. Aecordingly, the petition is discijssions do not find any illegality in able to acoept the submission of the proceecfings are abuse of the suffer miscarriage ofjustice, ifthe distnissed. Man.^"^nshrivastava Judge nio^lfl ?hfrr ga»ns»r,;w.i-<Tr? —FS7H7—2/2010 —1,00,000.