Sinste IN_THEJIQNBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. ')^)0 /2011 fS.B.) APPLICANT ? (complainant before the trial court) ^•^s^ ^1%'%W.^"°. -, ^.--:^-s^^"^ ^ -^ s»1'\'7{y-'''" ^^ ....-••" ••^^;, \Y-\i> Rajeev Rathore, S/o late Babu Lal Rathore (Excise Constable) aged about 54 years, R/o House of Chouhan sir, Vivekanand Ward No. 19, P.S. Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS Kamta Ram. Taram S/o Shri Durgasingh Taram, aged about 45 years, Assistant District Excise Officer, Dhamtari, P.S., Tahsil and Distt.-Dhamtari (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 4g2 OF CR.P.C. FOR OUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED SESg'ION RESPONDENT Accused before the trial court. .-^' JUDGE, RAJNANDGAON IN CRIMINAL REVISIQN N0. 55/2011, ORDER DATED 13.18.2011 WHERE THE CRIMINAL REVISION WAS DISMISSED BY LEARNED SESSION JUDGE RAJNANDGAON ARISING OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED J.M.F.C. RAJNANDGAON. VIDE ORDER DATED 06.06.2011 HAD DISMISSED THE COMPLAINTL^WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 500. 181'. 192 OF I.P.C. AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SESSION JUDGE, RAJNANDGAON IS FILED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE A/rAND THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED PASSED BY THE LEARNED J.M.F.C. 06.06.20Tl RAJNANDGAON IS FILED AS ANNEXURE A/2. r-~ V l\ ^^'~ XI-HC-78 ail^l qil f?lN? TnTan^TgiiiNr Hwvif (htncK 7£T';?|T!?RP:[, ®tl1^f*l6,?i|dl'Liy,< CT- ^ •(^' Afc- 7 ? °//i "^ 200 3fI^?TTPRi'(' ^Birwdfsa sii^i SB ; Hon'ble Shri Masaindra BIohan Slirivastava. J ttjat 28.11.2011 ShriN.K. Chatterjee, coi Heard on admission. This petition under Sec1 fhe petitioner aggrieved by orc cnminal revisioa prefenred b; 6.6.2011 disuiissing complainf Leamed counsel for th| coniplaint and the pretiminarj commission of offence uuder made out. It is submitted categoricaUy stated that a de? by ftie respondent againsl reputation of the petitioner furfher subiaitted that fhe i|< station against tihie petitioner poUce has been found to be t( close fhe case along wifh aj niaterial is sufScient to pruu^ ofoSence agauisfthe respondj< exercise its jurisdiction to complaint q»rilf^41l HT*1<r?f ^f f^cSt Tf^^R ^aifipTan^r l.nsel for the petitioner. ion 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. has been ffled by ler dated 13th October, 2011 passed in the petitioner, by which order dated has been afiinned. petitioner contended fhat from fhe ^ statement of the petitioner, a case of pections 500, 181 and 182 ofthe IPC is in the complaint, it has been veiy fainatoiy statement was got pubUshed fhe petitioner which lowered fhe jn the esteem in pubUc at large. It is ;port which was lodged in the police ly the respondent, upoa uiquiry, by ftie (aseless and the poUce has proposed to closure report. He submits ttiat this facie make out a case for registration jent, but the Courts below have failed to r^gister offence and have dismissed fhe T '^ 1 ^ XI-HC—7S aiA^I'?? 1%;ff3; gs'ff3T^W%lTBf Pra'veen ^s( •<<itiidAi, »Til'y4ifi, [c(<vfiy^< *iWW{ ^W^ snt^T Tra?? (Tpf^s;) TOfIWdftct sn^I -^ d jurisdiction^l Magistrate The complaint filed by has stated tfaat on the reporl was inquired into and fhe However, there is no averiuei before this Court to show fti£ by fhe concemec In fhe complamt, it ha| speciBc details, that the defaj the instance of the responde) details have been given nor al to show that fhe respon<j newspaper for publication. IBJ has not even aUeged fhat fhe uistance of tfae respoi Interestmgly, one who has niade an accused. The cd dismissed by the Court beUot Not interference is call^i The petition has no disniissed and is accordingly) fhe petitioner shows fhat fhe petitioner niade in the poUce station, the matter ^oUce has submitted a closure report. ^ts, nor any document has been placed ^t fhe closure report has been accepted <ti!<<fivl<il-1'tITiref'ct'fs<3tTfaR5R ^affiiiTsn^T been vaguely subniitbed, without any sfajoiiatory stateinent was got published at i^it. However, in fhis regard, no speci&c by document has been placed on record |.ent had approached fhe concerned his examination on oafh, the petitioner n^ws was published m. fhe newspaper at ident and fhat he got it published. )ublished fhe newspaper has not been |>iaplaint, therefore, has been righfly d for by fhis Court. Isubstance. The same deserves to be |dismw^-»-1— ManindraMohan_Shrivastava^