é? HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH. BILASPUR g. {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Sanjeev Banjare, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Sinqle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (29-10-2009) 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 3-10-2008 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.86/2008, affirming the judgment of acquittal dated 28-3-2008 passed by the Judicial First Class, Bilaspur j ; in Criminal Case No.654/2006, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has acquitted respondents No.2 to 6 herein of the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Vié°\@\9% Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.47 of 2009 APPLICANT/: Narmada Bai W/o Narendra @ lr‘ \bompainant) l Nem Singh, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Jogipur, TahsH & Ponce Station Mungeii, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus NON-APPLICANT/: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through (Prosecution) District Magistrate, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) (Accused) 2. Nem Singh S/o Tatua Singh, aged about 28 years. 3. Tam Singh S/o Late Shri Janak Singh, aged about 48 years. Basanta Bai W/o Tam Singh, aged about 45 years. 5. Dhirendra Singh S/o Tam Singh, aged abut 23 years. 6. Chameii Bai W/o Dhirendra Singh, aged about 20 years. Non-applicant No.2 to 6 are R/o Village Chorbhatha, near Gayatri Mandir, Police Station Mungeii, Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) @ 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. i 3. Learned counsel for the netltloner vehemently argued that the revisional Court has not considered the reasoning given by the trial . Court which was patently perverse and thereby committed illegality. 4.7 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the revisional Court has rightly affirmed the judgment of acquittal passed‘by the trial Court. 5. The revisional Court after considering the aspect of revision against the judgment of acquittal by the private party has dismissed the revision after arriving at a finding that there is no scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revisional Court has not Committed any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting any interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. i Some ' sal- T.P. SHARMA Judge