^"'" ^- BEPORE THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARW AT BILASPUR r C.GM •wm CR. MISC. PETETEON N0. OF2010 Applicant Accused \- 1. Sonau Ram Sahu S/o Rahmu Sahu aged 38 years (C.G.) 2. Devdhar sahu S/o Ramahu Sahu aged 32years 3. Smt. Mankuwer sahu W/o Devdhar •^F Sahu aged 28 years ^t^A^BU^-'^'J '^^ ^-^ ^w^ ^ 'S-'-' Yr^.'' '^y^ ^~y^ ( All above r/o Village Samtara, ••'^' t.?'"/7<y^'! p.5. Ranchirai, gunderdehi District Durg (C.G)) Respondent Complainant '? Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through :.Collector District Durg 2. Albela S/o Pattetal 6andharve aged 64 years, R/o Viltage Samtara, P.S. Ranchirai, Tehsil fiunderdehi, district Durg (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR QUASHI'Nfi OF THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2009 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C 6UNDERDEHI MSTRICT DURG AND ORDER DATED 29.10.2010 PASSED BY THE 8Trt A.S.J. DUR6 IN CASE^ N0.88/10. t.G. -1..,—;:"-'-• aiRRl'^I h-n* sn^T t>^ ' ^fgfl 'Sn; •<<1<11CI<<, BTl1'M'l6, (alCTI'My ^TT^T -V^R ,, ^-.kp.w.^^'^l^ •"•7"'"^ ^^ it*!Mi aiirai 200 sn^f^RiTwgft^ SB : Hon'ble ShriMariindra MoHan Shrivastava. J. 06-12-2010 Shri Anurag Jha, counsel fo| Shri Satish Gupta, G.A. wit) for the State/non-applicant No.1. Heard. This petition under Sectiofi against the order dated 29-10-2| Sessions Judge, Durg in Case ^ petition against the order dated Magistrate -First Class, Gundefl dismissed. Learned counsel for the passed by the Magistrate on the the Cr.P.C. fiied by the complait the proeess of law as the order| Further submission of tearned contents of the application undei not prima facie make out any casfs No.2-Devdhar Sahu and the apfjl yet the Magistrate mechanically under Section 156(3) ofthe Cr.F]. that even from the complaint, n( under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Tribes (Prevention of ASrocities)| counsel also argued that the Pcjl the applicants. h Shri A K. Shukta, Panei Lawyer ct)l'£1^4hTTR^f ^ fsT2t •t.f^^d.K. ^aiPgiisn^i 482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed -2()10 passsd by the 8th Additional |o.88 of 2010 , by which, revision 14-11-2009 passed by the Judicial (dehi, District Durg has been ^pplicants argued that the order |pp!ication underSection 156(35 of irjant is clearly ittegal and abuse of doas not contain proper reason. co|unsel for the applicants is that the Section 156(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. do je particularly against the applicant licant No.3-Smt. Mankuwer Sahu, ipirected the police to submit report .C. Learned counseS also submits case for commission of offence Scheduied Castes and Scheduled Act, 1989 is made out. Learned ice is actina in a mechanical and [^ ^FaA! ..^8a":- ff ^ #. f 'Ss •fe^ \ f%^^(.?3? .v-^ -HC-22 311^1'W h-H't' Sf^V ^H yfifl 's^ -^w\v\^, »fl1u*iG, I»«niyy ^ 0''M'^.l^.<?'c|^Zo10 >il*<CTiaslieR""""""""""'"""""""""f'W sn^r ^gTwnfttf 4. highhanded manner to register ar^ all the applicants alleging comrji 3(1)(x) ofthe Scheduied Castes of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He also not come wrth clean hands. On the other hand, tearnecj of the grounds raised by the app| that the Magistrate in its order ha^ through the application under Se{ facie facts relating to the cogni^ further submits that other argume( counse! for the applicants are the police has not so far been adverse report is submitted, the| take recourse to such remedy a^ the law. Contents of order dated 244 show that before issuing an Cr.P.C., "rt has been recorded cognizable offences are Sectjon 156(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. In the opinion of this Cour^ the Magistrate satisly the rs that the order passed by the] mechanical. Other submission ad) offence and submit report against ission of offence under Sectlon ^nd Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Isubmits that the complainant has discioted chM[ciift'l ~iW^ ^ fs^l ipil^i-t. ^7 3l)5giT 31^1 State counsel submits that none licants are made out. He submits ^ cteariy recorded that after goinc |;tion 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., prima :able offence are made ouf. He hts advanced on behaif of Searned prej-mature at this stage, as report of feubmitted and in case, m future, lapplicants would be at liberty to may be available to them under 111-2009 passed by the Magistrate orijier under Section 156(3) of the tfiat prima facie facts relating to from the application under [, such brief reasons recorded by equirejnent of law and it cannot be said Magistrate is non-speaking or j/anced by iearned counsel for the [^ ^Pa;-l J 6, ' ;i %;";?ff'SiXgHC-22 a> . ? ^; '\ ^.. ''..s'' '-"s. ";""~ .'- /"SII^T^I ft-li'* 31B5I sb*i?^ yii^i -S^ -iii^lcf'i), BTfl'y'ic, (<«II'MIJ,< C^-?u,^.?c?P/?0 tllHrIT %liT<»» applicants that from the entire against the applicants or particul t;omplalnt, no case is made out irly against the applicants No.2 & 3, is.a tnaffet relating to invest before.the.Gourt below. Sufcmissii for the' applicants that the Poiice Ij subrojt ;a;repprt against the a[}p!icants a!!eging commission of offence under Section 3 (1) (x|l Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of| offences, are based on hypothe^ before thte Court nor final report Police before the Magistrate. advance by learned counsel for this stage to examine correctne^ 29-10-2010 passed bythe leamec) In the result, the petition dismissed. »hl'<fd'lil-!t|INdI ^ fttit <r<l<^]t ^? sipgT sn^i igation and submission of report ion advanced by learned counsel las acted mechanicaily or likeiy to of the Scheduied Castes and Atrocities) Act, 1989 and other is. No material has been placed ?ias so far been submitted by the [herefore, alt thsse submfesions :he applicants are not releyant at s and validity of the order dated 24-11-2009 passed by the Ma^istrate as well as order dated Additional Sessions Judae. has no merit and is accordingiy t Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^ft^^fe^