IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR / Cruninal M P. No. 33 ^ OP 2011 BETWEEN 1. Atul Gupta S/o Murari Prasad Gupta, aged 26 years, occupation Cloth shop (Atul Garments) 2. Smt. Urmila Gupta W/o Murari Prasad Gupta, D/o Jagdish Prasad Gupta, aged 52 years, occupation - house wife. 3. Vivek Gupta S/o Murari Prasad Gupta, aged 25 years. 4. Murari Gupta S/o Bholaram Gupta, aged 55 years. 9 i^o^ All by caste Kesharwani, R/o Deviganj^ Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). PETITIONERS Accused No. 1 to 4 ftt P.R. (to. P(e*ented by ^m fi Balnt..........^]J'?.&;.f,/............. AND 1. Jagdish Prasad Gupta S/o Sharan Sav, aged years , occupation - Pensioner, R/o Nagar Deviganj <"Ward,; Maharaja GaU, Ambikapur, P.S. & TahsU Ainbikapur, District Surguja (CG). RESPONDENT /COMPLAINANT 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). RESPONDENTS -- ^ PETITIQN UNDER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C. FOR QUASH!NG_ OF C^MPLAINT CASE N0. 651/2010 REGISTERED ^Y_ ^THE_ ' LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS. AMBIKAPUR, DISTRICT SURGUJAAS_WELL AS ORDER DATED 3.12.2010 BY WHICI^ THE LEARNED JMFC ORDERED FOR REGISTRATION OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 417, 4l8^2Q,4Q6,J,2Q;BJPC AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED^24.5.2QU PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION N0. 159/2010 BY ^HE LEARNED 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSION JUD&E, AMBIKAPUR , AFFIRMING THE QRDER_ DATED^ 3.12.2010 AND REJECTING THE PETLTIQNERS REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397, 399 OF Cr.P.C. ifA<N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble IVIr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Cri.M.P.No. 338/2011 PETITIONERS Atul Gupta and others Versus RESPONDENT Jagdish Prasad Gupta and another Shri Shailendra Dubey counsel for the petitioners. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDER (28.06.2011) Heard on admission. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have assailed the order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against them under sections 417, 418, 420, 406 and 120-B IPC and directed for registration of the complaint case against them. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Crimir-al Revision No. 159/2010 affirming the order ofthe Magistrate. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that present appears to be a case of civil dispute but has been given the colour of the ^ criminal one. According to him, as number of civil disputes are already pending between the parties, the revisional Court ought to have interfered with the order of the Magistrate. 3. From the record it is apparent that serious allegations have been made against the petitioners not only involving the dispute of civil nature but it spells out the criminal offence as well. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners are just the defence available to the petitioners which can be raised at the time of trial. The order passed by the learned Magistrate directing for registration of a complaint case which has been affirmed by the revisional Court as well by the order under challenge herein, appears to have been passed after considering all the points and that being so no interference with the same can be made by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Accordingly, the petition being without substance is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and it is dismissed as such. sd/— PritinkerDiwaker Judge <Tl"