Kw QB HIGH COURT OF/CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1466 of2003 \%\\N PETITIONER RS. Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l. State of Chhattisgarh thmugh the Secretary Department of Home, Mantralaya, DK Bhawan, Raipur (CG). . The City Magistrate, Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). Smt. Chameli Shanna, W/o C).P. Shanna, aged 34 years, R/o Chnaini Bhatha, Thethwaxpara, Rajham, WM . Station House 0%cer, P.S. Rajhara, Dalli Rajham Distt. Durg (CG) 4. Shri Vimal jain .S/o Sukhlal Jain, aged 38 years, R/o Naya Bazar Rajhara, P.S.' Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). 5. Shri Govind Lohiya S/o Murlidhar Lohiya, aged 35 years, R/o Naya Bazar Rajhara, P.S. Daili Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). 6. Shri Kachar Mal Jain S/o Manaldal Jain, aged 38 years, R/o Naya Bazar Rajhara, P.S. DalH Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). 7. Shri Shanti La! Jain S/o not known R/o Naya Bazar Rajhara, P.S. Dani Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). 8. Shn' Ratiram S/o not known, R/o Naya Bazar Rajhara, P.S. Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). 9. Shri Subhash Mittal, S/o not known, ’R/o Naya Bazar . Rajhara, RS. Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). 10.Shri Nirma] Lodha S/o not known, R/o Naya‘Bazar Rajhara, RS. Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). 11.Shri Ajay Chhajed, S/o not known, R/o Naya Bazar Rajhara, P.S. Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). l2.Shri Ram Kishun Kukreja S/o not known, R/o Naya Bazar Rajhara, RS. DaHi Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). . 1,3.Shri Mahesh Pande S/o not known, R/o Naya Bazar Rajhara, RS. Dalii Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). 14.Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav, W/o not known R/o Chandaii Bhatha, Rajhara, P.S. Daiii Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARI‘ICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Awadh ‘Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17‘” day of October, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing dually. Sa'hu V\ m! Leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that a criminal case has been registered against the respondent-No. 4 to l4, and me! trial respondent Nos. 7,89,10,11, 13 and 14 have been found guilty of an offences committed under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ’IPC'), and punished with penalty of Rs. 200/- each, in default 12V f days simple imprisonment. In view of the foregoing, according to ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nOthing survives in this petition, so far as, grievance of the petitioner, with regard to registration of case against the respondent No. 4 to 14 is concerned, learned counsel! I further submits that since the petitioner has already been proceeded against, thus, the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed. No order can be passed on the said prayer without looking into the matter at length. The petitioner. seeks liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceeding under the provisions oflaw as available to him. It is ordered accordingly. In View ofthe foregoing, this petition stands disposed of with the above stated liberty. No order asto costs. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1333/03, application for grant/(of interim relief, stands disposed of. , \ _. ‘7 r Sd/— L r ‘ satish K. Agnihom- i Judge \ r ’ILTV: .f‘