HI6H COURT OFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. PetitionNo.410of 2009 APPLICANTS/: (Petitioners) RESPONDENT: 1. Ashok Kumar Sinha,S/o Lakhan Lal Sinha, aged about 33 years, 2. Lakhan Lal Sinha, S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sinha, aged abut 55 years, 3. Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, W/o Lakhan Lal Sinha, aged abut 52 years, 4. Sunil Kumar Sinha, S/o Lakhan Lal Sinha, aged about 25 years, 5. Ku. Jyoti Sinha, D/o Lakhan Lal Sinha, aged about27 years. All R/o Near Sheetala Mandir, Amapara, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur(C.G.) 6. Smt. Kusum Jain, W/o Bhejram Jain, R/o Village Kukari, P.S. Charama, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) {Petition under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Rishi RahulSoni, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for theState/ respondent. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (8-8-2009) 1. This petition under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. is for quashment ofthe appeal proceeding pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No.21/2009 filed under Section 378 (1) (a) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 2-1-2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No.398/2006. 2. Quashment of the appeal proceeding is prayed on the ground that without any prima facie ground for admission of appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge has admitted the appeal for final hearing and thereby committed illegality. ii <^> 3.1 have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused copy of the judgment of the trial Court and order sheets of the appellate Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that without considering the prima facie ground for admission of appeal, the Court betow has admitted the appeal for consideration and thereby committed illegality. Statements of the witnesses including the complainant are self-contradictory and there are discrepancies, omissions and contradictions in their statements which make their statements unreliable. 5. On the other hand, learned counselappearing on behalf of the State/ respondent opposed the petition and submitted that appeal under the provisions of law is a statutory right and the appellant/State should not be debarred from availing its statutory right. 6. On perusal of the copies of order sheets of the appellate Court it appears that after hearing the State/appellant and perusal of record, the Court below has admitted the appeal for final hearing and issued notices to the present petitioners. Judgment of the trial Courtalso reveals that there is prima facie sufficient case for admission of the appeal. Therefore, I do not find any ground for invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the statutory claim/right of filing appeal by the State/ appellant. 7. Consequently, the petition is dismissed in limine. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge