HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. CR.M.P. No. 45 OF 2009 Damanlal, aged about 37 years, S/o Shri Ganpat Rao Sahu, R/o Village Bhanpuri, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). 3. M/s Venchuta Securities Limited, Through Officiating Director, Dhannur 115 Sir. G.M. Road, Court Mumbai, Maharashtra. M/s Venchura Securities Limited, Through: Branch Manager, Branch Office Pushpak Apartment, Near Government High School, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Amit Mahavar, aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Sitaram Mahavar, Office Sadar Bazar Chameli Chowk Dhamtari, R/o Shanti Colony Dhamtari, Police Station and Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. (SB :Hon*ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:-. Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 27/10/2009) 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short (the Code') against the order dated 5/8/2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari District Dhamtari in criminal revision No. 44/2007 afflrming the order dated 20/8/07 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, in unregistered complaint whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. ..J' -2-- Quashment is prayed on the ground that Court below has not considered the evidence sufficient for taking cognizance against the respondents and thereby committed an illegality. Order impugned and order of trial Court perused. Vide order dated 20/8/07 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari has dismissed the complaint filed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has not examined the hand writing expert and has not deposed anything that who has presented cheque for payment. Trial Court has not dismissed the complaint on the ground that no case is made but has dismissed the complaint insufficiency of the material same has been affirmed by the revisinal Court while passing the order impugned both the Courts below has issued notices to the respondents at the stage of taking cognizance. On due consideration that notice has not been issued to respondents by the Courts below, issuance of notice to respondents No. 1 to 3 is hereby dispensed with. The order passed by trial Court reveals that Court below has dismissed the coniplaint on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence but the complainant and its witnesses has adduced their oral evidence. Taking into consideration the order impugned and order of trial court further inquiry into the mafter/complaint would be necessary. Consequently, petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby set aside. Case is remitted back to the Court ofJudicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari is directed to make further inquiry into the complaint -^— ^ dismissed under Section 203 of the Code in accordance with Section 398 of the Code. Record of trial Court along with copy of order be sent to the trial Court immediately. Petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on 1/12/2009. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge