l^^lg#&?J Oin Prakash Tatiya s/o Nathuinal Tatiya, aged about 55 years, R/o Sadar Road, Balod, P.S. and TehsU Balod, District Durg(CG) Vet-sus State of Chhattisg District Magistrate, Durg(CG) Thi-ough ; rg, District ^vsSjSiS33" Shri Uttam. Pandey, coiuisel for fhe petidoner. Shri Saajeev Kuinar Agrawal, Paael Lawyer for fhe State. ORAL ORDER SUNiL KUMAR SINHA,_J. t-tearcl. TIie petitioner, who is aa accused in Cruninal Case No. 281/2008, pending ia the Court of J.M.F.C., Balod under Sections 406, 420 6» 411 IPC aad Section 3/7 of the Essential Coinmodities Act (hex'einal'ter refeiTed to as the 'Special Act';, has filed fhis petition under Section 482 of the Code of Ciimiaal Procedui-e, challengio.g the order dated 16.2.2009, passed iii Cr. Rev. No. 33/2008 by fhe Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, Distiict Diu'g, whereby, fhe Revision filed under Section 397 Cr. P. C. against JTainiiig of fhe chai'ges by fhe Magistrate luider the aforesaid Sections of fhe IPC aad fhe Special Act, has beeii dismissed by the said Court. A perusal of the copy of charge sheet would show fiiat tl'ie petitioner was aanaed in fhe First Infoi-madon Report. He was fhe Salesiuaa of Fair Price Shop. Tbe ailegations ai-e tliat he niisappropriated certaiu food grains and supplied them to Uie i6 a,,. 'te Cr.M.P.No. 114/2009 co-accused - Vikas Nahta. There is sufficient laaterial against the petitioner to frame chai'ges under fhe aforeinendoned Sections of flie IPC as also tiie Special Act. In the matter of Om Wati fSmt) cuid Another Vs. State, thrsuah Delhi Adtnn.. and Others, 12001} 4 Supreine Cwiirt Cffses 333,' relyiug tlie judgiuent reudered iu tlie »^»i niatter of 722, fhe Apex Court held fhat it is fhe statutory obligation of fhe H^,h Court. not to inferfere at tiie initial stage of framiag fhe charges -merely on hypothesis, im.agm.ati.on aad far-fetched reasons which ia law ainount to in.terdictmg fhe tnal agaitist fiie. accused persons. Setf-restraiat OQ fh.e part of ttie High Court should be the rule unless tbe'ie is a glailug iajustice staiing fbe court iu fhe face. Unscrupulous litigaats should be discouraged froin protractiiig fhe trial aiid preventuig culintaation of fhe criia.itiai cases by havilig resort to uiicaUed-for aud uujustified litigation under fhe cloali: of technicalities of law. In tiie facts aiid circuxiistaiices of ttie case, I do not find aiiy reasou to uiterfere with fhe orders passed by the trial Court as also ftie revisional Court. The petition has no nierits. The same is liable to be disiiiissed, and is accordingly dismissed at fhe niotion stage itself. ;-——^ _ _._ Sd/- i Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge suriita