IH T OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 403/2009 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: Shri Anoop Majumdar, Advocatefor the petitioners. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 7/ 8/2009) 1. This petition is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the code) for qushrnent of the order \_ dated 6/7/09 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 2/09 Where by learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application for closing of the prosecution case filed on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Copy of the order impugned and other documents arevperused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present petitioners are facing trial of the offence of gang rape before the HG COUR ‘i‘ 3, PETITIONERS (in jail! Kamlesh Mandavi S/o Surajmal aged about 21 years. Rukham Sinha S/o Pancham Sinha, aged about 18 years, Murli Adame, S/o of Shyamlal, aged about 22 years, Bishal Mandavi, S/o of Govind, aged about 18 years, A11 residents of Kandrapara, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through; The Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Additional Sessions Judge Dongargarh only the prosecutrix is remain for examination Court has regularly issued process against the prosecutrix but same has not been served upon her because she has left her place of residence. Present petitioners is in custody since 20/12/08 and there is no likelihood of early disposal of the case on the ground of non-availability of the prosecutrix present petitioners are not at fault for delay therefore the case of the prosecution be closed and court below be directed to proceed further. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposed the petition and submits that this is a case of serious offence of gang rape. Court below and prosecution are trying their level best for production of the prosecutrix. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for invoking extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction and their petition should be dismissed. Copy of the order sheet filed on behalf of the petitioners reveals that process has not been served upon the prosecutriX on the ground of her non-availability in the address given. Production of material witness before the court for examination is primary duty of the prosecution but prosecution presently petitioners are in custody since 20/ 12/08. Acquisition of serious offence of gang rape is pending against the petitioners only prosecutrix is remain for examination. Summons has not been served upon her because she has left her address. The prosecution is making serious efforts for her production. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the detention period of the petitioners, I do not find any ground for w—3,__ [w quashment of the order impugned only on the ground of some delay. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. However, Court below is directed to take appropriate coercive steps for issuance of arrest warrant and suitable action under Sections82 8a 83 of the Code, Respondent/State is also directed to ensure the production of prosecutrix. Copy‘of the order be sent to the trial Court also by FAX mode. iii/Magg irksw- 2, T. P. sharma i Judge? V i L[:_#‘———-—’-'—“"”' i V