""^ul>—*:S3L—- <. Sln;[,3s Bei IN THE HIGH COURT^F JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR- Cr.M.P. No.^Lt'~}-/ 2011 PETITIONER: ^r^ ^y^^- ^•^y^-^'" a£^ • .-••• n-icrt'* RESPONDENTS: 1. Deepak Choudhary S/o Satyanarayan Choudhary, aged about 26 years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Korba, P.S. Kotwali, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (CG). (Cojmplainant) VERSUS Bheshdas Mahant S/o Not known, aged about 45 years, occupation- Service, (Police Department), Head Constable, Kotwali, Korba, R/o Kotwali, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (CG). (Accused) State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Korba (CG). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE T sfi^w^nfm^ wi.min'aiqi'? tEs^aStttSsSES^-l^casesiiuj '°i!es^-^^aisesaieaBU»a^^ -•s-si ^TiiT^pT^'^TpTC, t^iray _, ^^.[l^^ gn^I q^qT (-^f^-^E;; •s^nwsrttti sa^i SB^THbii'ble Shri MinindraMohai^hnvastava.J. 20-10-2011 Shri Shailendra Dubey and petitioner. ; Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawjyer for the State Heard. By this petition, the petitioi|ier has assailed correctness and validity of order dated 11-04-2011 case bythe Chief Judicial Magistr^te, Korba, whereby the complaiht case of the petitioner has been (jlismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to obtain perm under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of sanction for prosecution of respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petit ^Tqfa^T spTCff ^i 'fSVt 'lS^R5f< ^- w^'-i sa^i hri Shivang Dubey, counsel for the passed in unregistered complaint |ssion from the competent authority oner submitted that the allegations made in the complaint would show tfiat the respondent No.1 committed criminal act, for which, he is not elftitled to any permission under the umbrellaof Section 197 of the Cr.PjC., and therefore, fhere is nb need under the law for sanctionof his prcjsecution for alleged commissibnof lcounsel is that when the petitioner offence. Next submission of learned had preferred revision against the or((er dated 23-09-2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learn^d Revisional Court vide its order dated 28-12-2010 granted three mofiths time to the petitibner toobtain necessary sanction. Thereafter, the before the competent authority and c|ertain proceedings were drawn, but no decision was taken by the comp^tent appoiriting authority in relation to respondent No.1 within a perio|d of three months, which led to petitioner submitted an application •m i,(WIRira—l'S/140—2/2011—1,50,000. 'l<'.\ A' .s' ^ yfc3'5SBa* 1 v%sasia-8|| ai^T-qilfew wnsn^igTiri"; Tumane .L- r, 'g~i;Tn:TT?, tsrc:n?iy s^v, ^iv (^y^f) -^- BiNtn^ T!CTW il fs'a 'iFsR^R ^ s'^'i an^ dismissal of the complaint vide ijnpugned order, recording that no sanction order has been submitfed in the Court within the time stipulated. In the absence of there bein^ any challenge to the order passed by the Magistrateand theRevisiona] questionas to whether sanction in ttj It is found that the petitioner had ariplied for grant of sanction, after the order was passed by the Revisi petitioner's grievance is to the effec^t that for want of any permission in the matter with regardto grant or re| dismissed, the petitioner would be a|t liberty to challenge inaction on the part of the State Authorities in appro Court, this Court cannot go into the e present case, is necessary or not. inal Court on 28-12-2010. If the 'usal of sanction, the complaintwas ppro| riate proceedings. With the aforesaid liberty, the Ipetition is finally disposedoff. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge vnrSw Wv^evio><i, .(Tmfsira—l.s/140—2/2011—i,so,ooo. r"'" ^m