^- © IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHH/VTTISGARH) Cr.M.P.No. /«> /2009 ^.^k ? yt'. 'i ^Y^" PETITIONER (Complainant) •^•'^ .^&^ v'^". ,\^"u (^ RESPONDENT (Accused person) Ashwani Kumar Dadsena, aged about 41 years, S/o. Shri Ganbhir Ram Dadsena/R/o. Amarpuri Chowk, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Kumareshwar Tiwari, S/o. Shri Ramharshan Tiwari, aged about ^-2-^ years, R/o. Village ^yllff') Panhadore, P.S. Utai, District Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. 1974 FOR SEEKING OUASHiriJGTHE ORDER DATED 4-12^' 08. ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 12TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE fF.T.C.), DURGE. IN CRIMINAL REVISION N0. 137/0'STBETWEEN THE ABOVE PARTIES fFILED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE A/14^ AS WELL AS ORDER OF LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS DURG IN UNREGISTERED COMPLAINT CASE BETWEEN THE ABOVE PARTIES. VIDE ORDER DATED 22-8-oSfANNEXURE A/13). BNyi?^s^:^;''s HIQH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILA8PUR 8B : HON*BLB MR. JU8TICB PRITINKBRDIWAKBR CS'LM.P.NO. 9S/09 PETITIONBR Ashwani Kiunar Dadsena versus RE8PONDENT Kutaareshwar Tiwari Shn Abhay Tiwari, coiinsel for fhe petitiotier. Shri Sachm Siagh Rajput^ counsel for the xiespondent, JMBTITION UNDBR SBCTION 482 CR.P.C. ORDBR (19-01-2010) Heard on admission. The present petition filed uader Sectioai - 2 Cr.P»C. is directed agaiast fhe order dated 4.12.^X)08 pasaed by the 12tb Additional Sessions Judge (FTG) Diu^ wherdby the revision preferred by fhe petitioner has been disaaissed aad the order of fhe leamed Magistrate dated 22.8,2008 has been afl5rmied, 2, Contention of fhe couasel for fhie petitioner is ffaat a complaint case was filed by him on 26,3,2008 agaiast tfae respondent allegmg ia it fhat fhe said respoadent has coiimiitted fhe oflfence iiader Sections 4<X),467;,471 & 506 IPC. It is aULeged in fhe coniplamt that fhrougfa tihie powef of attomey of one Chherkia Bai, fhe land m question bas been sold by Sangita Chandrakar to fhe petitionerys wife 011 30.12.2006 and fhis fact was within fhe knowledge of fhe respondent It is furfher alleged that ChMerIdn Bai has expired ia fhe year 2002 whereas rcgistration was done m the year 2006 by Saagita Chandrakar, AU (hese facts wei^ wifhiii fhe knowledge of fhe rcspondent It has toeen argued y by Sfari Tiwari fhat about Rs. 10,57,000 have been tekeaa by Sangita Chandrakar after execution of the sale deed aad subsequently tlie said amouiit had been rcceived by the respondent. 3, Shri Rajput, couusel for the respondent has iafbrmed that tlie civil suit has already been filed by tlie fespondeiit aiid her sister agaiast fhe petitioner and Sangita Chandrakar as ia fact it is the respondent wbo haa been cheated by fhe petitioner and Sanglta Chandrakar. According to him^ fhe civil siiit is pendiag before fhe competent Court. 4. After considering all fhe aspects offhe case, vide ordar dated 22.08.08 leanied Magisteate has dismissed fhe complaint as filed by fhe petitioner aiid the maia reason which has been assigned by fhe Court is fhat fhe report of fhe police officer was catled and after a detailed enquiiy report has been subinrtted ftiat fhe dispiite appears to be of civil nature aad fherefore no nriminal act on the part of the respondent is made out In a r^nsioa preferred by fhe petitioner on 4.12.2008, the revisional Court has p^issed a detaUed order after considenng aU the facts aad circixaistaEices of fhe case, The remsional Coxirt has also come to fhe conolusion that ftie dispute appears to be of civtt nature aad fh.erefore tfaere is no basis fi>r rcgisteriag any case against the respondent, 5. In view of fhe above faets and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to mterferc with fhe order impugHed. The petition fatts and is hereby dismissed at fhe xaotion stage itself. PritinkerDiwaker Judge