INTHE ii2t ^ it S i "^ ^'<^? Sj COURT <»•C»HATTISGAKHAT BILftSPUR CRIMmAL MISC. PBTITION N0. <^ < Lf OF JIOl 1 PETITIONER P.R.Ks. ?6<r0 •^?^:-^ ./"s..^.'-^--"- Bhupendra Smf^ S/o Balwant. Singh, aged abdut.fiS years, Occupation-Bustness, R/o. Dar<^apara, Raigalt4 TahsU and District Ra4;arti (C.G.) • : 1- :- 1-8---- •1-- Versus RESPONDENT Complainant 1. SmtShakunfla Soni W/o. Satyanarayan Soni, aged about 63 years, OGcapation- Housewife, R/o Darogapara, Rai^rh, District Rai^rh (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh tbrou^i District Magistrate, Ra^arh, District Raigarh (C.G); PETITION UNDEaR. SECTION 483 OF THB COI® Oy CRIMINAI. PROCEaTORE f Bnupendra Singh Smt. ShaKuntla Soni and another PETiTiON uNDER SECTiQN 48S OF THE CODE OF CRirvilNAL PROCEDURE l^ i_. .^: A present: - ann Awaan iripami, counsei rorinepetiiioner. Shri Ashish QiiDts. Psno! Lsw^/sr forths Ststs on sdvsncs CODV. 'Passed on 23 Mearo on aamission. ~i. i nis pennon nas Deen niea oy tne pemioner aggnevea Dy oraer aatea (—-< z//u.'72un oassea DV ine Kevisionai uoun wnere&v oraer aatea .i'u/us>/2Uiu &v wnicn tne L;nier juaiciai p/iagistrate nas registerea onence against tne petinoner, nas Deen amrmea. a. yuomission ot learnea counsei r.or uie petitioner is tnat earller, the compiaint riiea agalnst tne petitioner was aismissea &y tne iViag'strate on U/1/U3 against wnicn, revision was niea wnicn was aiso aismissed on 25/0/703. Thereafter, when the matter was taken to this Court, vide order dated 18/11/09, the petition was aiiovred and the matter was remanded back to the Court of Chief Judiciai Magisirate; Raigarh for making further enquiry into the complamt aismissea unaer aection 2U3 OT s-.r^t/ in accoraance wreh the Drovisions of Section 3b'8 OT (jri-'L;. Mov/ever, aner remana, tne learnea iviaaistrate aia not '^'w^^'n^ % '"\:'^* •&, fe^ .-^ I^J/ •^sxaay .-^s^ heid fus-ther enquir^ as directed by this Court and vide order dated 20/05/2010 registered offence under Sections 420, 487, 468, 471, 473 and 474 of IPC aaainst t'ne Detitioner which is not oniv in excess of jurisdiction but aiso vioiative of the order oassed eariier bv this Court on 18/11/09. Learned counsei further submltted that the dispute is purely of civit nature and the civil iitigation is going on Deween tne panies. me wrtness - fcsneemsen was ear'ier examinea in tns civii proceedings and serious discrepancies are found in his statement as given before the Civil Court and in the criminal case. The oetitioner is neither a beneficiary under the aiieged wi!! nor his name anyvvhere is mentioned in the cseea. i nersrore, registrauon or onence against tne petitioner is cieany an aDuse of me Drocess of !aw. a 4. The facts which are noi in dispute are that on 11/12/02, compiaint under section 2uu (JFKL; was tiiea DV tne responaent NO.I ana tnereaner, pi'eiiminaiy statements were aiso recorded. On 8/1/03, the compiaint was dismissed by the agistrate aaainst wnicn revision was aiso dismissea viae oraer aatea 'zsii'jfiu.i. On a Detition beina fiied bv the comDlainant under Section 482 CrPC before this Coun, tne petition was aisowea. n was oDsen/ea tnat tne nandwrrting expert nas ooinea tnat tne wili nas not Deen executed DV MaiiKram Kathore in ravour OT yrnt, Shuri Bai and Bhupendra Singn and they are oniy Denenciary of tne wni aeea ana t'nat these facts are sufficient for taking cognizance against them but the triai Coun nas rerra'nea rtseif rrom taKina coanizance oniv on tne ground tnat uniess Civi! court iaefore wnom civii suit ls oenaing aeciaes wnetner tne aocumem is forged or not, registration of criminai case wouid not be just. On the aforesaid consiaeration, rt nas Deen neia tnat tne unmina! Coun rriay taKe cognizance OT the ottence as weli as C!vil Coun may decide tne case OT civn nature when tne ', ^22^.: Ste-n.^ %. 1 "1 .< .,y y 1:-^>' same set OT racs constitutes commission OT onence and Qispute aiso OT civit nature and the view taken by the Magistrate that it wouid refrain itself from taking cognizance Gii decision of the Civii.Court, is erroneous. On this consideration, ths order or dismissai of compiaint and affirmatlon by the Revisionai Court was set aside and the rnatter remanded. 5. From the perusai of oraer sheets of the Court of Chief JudJciai Ma.gisfrate. recorded after remand of th®case itseif reveals that the comDiainant was summoned and opportunity was afforaed to the compiainant on 3/4/2010 to examine any other witness and produce documents if any jn support of ths compteint. On 3/5/2010, ihe comDfainant stated that she is not wiliincs to iead any more evidence or fiie any document. Thereafter, the Magistrate considered the mareria! on reoord and registered offence. The order of the Magistrate shows that the reasons, though in brief, have been recorded by the Magistrate which snows appiication or mina to me contents ot trie compsaim. inererore, i am unabie to accept the submission of Isarned counsei for the petitioner thai after remand of the case, further enquiry, as directed by this Court has not been rnaae. AII omer grounds wnicn a.re now Being raisea are not avaiiaDie in vievv of tne oDservations eariier maae mat tne opinion of nana wnnng expert tnat wiil deed has not been executed by Maiikram in favour of the present petitioner and otner co-accusea - smt. Shuri Bai is sumcient for taKina coonizance. 6. !n the result, l do not find any merit. The petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ^ Judge ^