IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE AT BiLASPUR Cr.M.P.No.182of2006 Petitioner Mantamiya Sahu, Wlfe of Shri Purshottam Sahu, daughter of Shri Durjan Sahu, aged about 50 years, occupation agricuiture, resident of viilage Tendua, Tah. Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) ResDQndents 1. 2. 3. Jugesh son of Shri Shivparasad Sahu, aged about 35 years, viilage Tendue, Badri, aged about 40 years, son of Ramswaroop Sahu, viilage Ranayee Rajesh son ofShri Shiv Prasad Sahu, aged about 25 years, viilage Tendua, Ail above respondents, Police Station-patna, Tah. Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. PETITiON UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRJMiNAL PROCEDURE CODE. 1973 (SB: Hon'bie Shri Justice T.P. Sharma) Present: Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advoeate forthe petitioner. Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on 4th Apri!, 2008) / 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 7.11.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korea in Criminai Revision No. 230/06 affirming the order dated 1 1.8.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baikunthpur in Crimina! Case No. 8/2006. 2. The order is challenged on the ground that after initiation of proceeding, the iearned Sub Divisional Magistrate has dropped the proceeding and thereby committed illegatity and same was maintained by the revisionai court. Both the courts beiow have committed illegaiitv. 3. Counsei for the parties heard. 4. Order ofthe courts below perused. K '>. -." J '•>, •^--'.<'" -2- 5. Jt is arausd on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has fiied application under sectlon 145 and 146 of ths Code of Crimina! Procedure (in short "the Code') before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. After hearing the parties, the Sub Divisional iVlagistrate dropped the proceeding on the ground that the petitioner may approach to Civil Court for adjudication^ Order was challenged in the revision, but the same was affirmed by the revisional court. Both the courts have committed illegality. Both the courte were not justified to drop the proceeding after initiation of the proceeding without any reasonable ground. 6. Thls is a petition under seetion 482 of the Code of Criminai Procedure for invoking the inherent jurisdiction. After dismissal of revision, scope of interference in exercise of inherent power under section 482 of the Code is very limited and it may be used in case of rarest of rare. It can not be used as substitute for second revlsion. 7. The Sub DMsional Magistrate has passed the order under section 145 (1) of the Code only on the basss of the application, supported with an affidavit of the applicant. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed the order in hasty, cryptic and casual manner and on second date after considering the facts of both the parties, dropped the proceeding. Same is affirmed by the revisional court. 8. Normaliy after initiation of proceeding under section 145 of the Code, passing of preiiminary order under section 145 (1) of the Code and after passing of the order of attachment under section 146 ofthe Code, proceeding should not be dropped. 9. !n the instant case, the order of initiation of proceeding and the order of dropping of proceeding are erroneous. Initialiy the order was not passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate after due :/''^% ~\ Arfe-A3^ ^ vas-via^ s <* » y » h-. ''-"y^:^v ,"y "^^ 3 Bl- aDDlication of mind and same is corrected by the second erroneous order which was maintained in revision. 10. Having considered both the orders, l do not find any ground for interference in exereise of inherent power under section 482 of the Code. Consequently, the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. . _,, Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge J^IE~SiS?;"