Si^tea<A IN TyEJ-IOJM'BLEJ-jIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. ^ /2010 PETITtONERS ACCUSED 1. SURAJ DEWAN6AN S/o Laxmicharan Dewangan, Aged about 28 years, 2. .^--1S: ss'^' .^-"s^-^,^ C>.,A 3. -«A. -s^yi w :^^^ RESPONDENT COMPLAINANT LAXMICHARAN DEWANGAN, S/o Late Chhote Lal Dewangan, Aged about 50 years, SMT. AMOL BAI W/o Laxmicharan Dewangan, aged about 45 years, All R/o Mohalla Beladula, Near Kharraghat, Raigarh, District: Raigarh (C.6.). VERSUS SMT. &AUKI BAI DEWAN6AN, W/o Suraj Dewangan, aged about 21 years, R/o Ward No. 8, Sarangarh, District: Raigarh (C.6.) PETETION UNDER SECTION 48Z OF THE CRIMINAL PROCECECURE CODE AGAWST THE ORDER &ATED f€ 20.11.2009 PASSED BY /\.S."J. SARANGARH. DISTRICT RAI6ARH (C.&.) IN CRIMINAL REVISION CASE hlO. Bfl 12/2009.•f^' HIGH COXJRTOF CHHATnSQARH ATBn.ASPOR 8B : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PRITIMKBR DrarAKER Ca.M.P.MO. 26/2010 PBTITIOinBRS Suraj Dewangan & Ofhers versus RB»PONDBNT Sint. Gauri Bal Dewangan Shri Gurudev I Sharan, couasel for fhe petitioncrs. Shri H.S-Patel, counsclfor fhc respondeiit. PBTITIOa U/8 482 OP THB CRJP.C. ORDER (19.03.a01(^ Heard on admission. The present petttion filcd undcr Section 482 Cr.P.C. ia directed agaiast the order dated 20.11.2009 'passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Sarangarh District Raigarh ia Cr. Refr. No. 12/2009 whercby fhe leamed Addttional Sessions Judge had refused to quash the coinplaint case of whicli fhe cognizaacc has been takea by fhe learaed Judidal ^4^istrate First Class, Saraagarh. Contention of fhc coiinsel for fhe petitioiieis te that fhe dispute bctwcen thc parties is purcty of enril iiature aud fhe ingredients of Section 405 & 406 IPC are not attracted. He submits ftiat fhe pctitioners have giycn fhe rcpty ofttie tegal noti.cc aad fhey are wiUing to returu the stn^dhan of the respondent and therefore the proceedings can bc dropped. Counsel for fhe respondent veiy fairty subinits that the respondent is wiUing to acccpt aU Iicr s<n" dhan aad if fhe petttioners are showing theirdesire, fhey can infonn fhe learacd Judicial Magisteate and fhere the dispute can bc resolved. He however subxnits that in. view of fhe judgment of the apcx Court in fhe matter of PrftUMta. Rfml Vs. Suntf Xumur & Another reported ia AJBt 19S5 SC 628, prima facie the ofience undcr Section 405 & 406 IPC is made out aeainst the petitioneis. ^s^9"^ ftt facie fhe offcnce under Section 405 & 406 IPC is aaadc out agaiast the petittoners. Be ihat sa it sasy, iffhe petitioneTS so desae (hey caa inform the leamed Magfatrate about fheir iatention and can make effort to resolve fhcir dispute. Considering fhe facts aad circumstaaces of fhe case, ia particular fhe nattue of atkgations against fhc petttioners, I am ofthe considcred view that fhe order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judgc fe stricfly iu accordance wifh law and fhere is no infirmily in the same and no interference can be caBcd for in fhe petition ffled under Section 482 of the Codc of Cruaiaal Procedure. The petitiori is accordingfy dismissed. Sd/- pritinkerD^ker