HIGEE CQUR’E‘ OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILAsPUR CREMINAL MisCELLANEoUS PETITIoN No. 47o OF 2009 PETETIONER K. Sandhyarajai, Wjo Y. F‘anikumar, ACCUSED Aged about 30 ysars, Rilo House of Gopal Rae, 1‘“ Floor, Plot No. 20, Straet N0. 6, Dixit Colony, Kosanagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsii and District Durg (CG). VERSUS RESFGNEEEE‘W Janak Vandana Associatss, Propxietor— 7 "r COMPLMNANT Amn Agrawal, Punjab Mil} Gali, Ramsagm‘ Para, RS. Azad Chowk, Raipur(CG). CREMENAL MISCLLANEGUS PETITIGN UNDER SECTIGN 482 OF THE {SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Pre$ent:— Smt, Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORAL— ORDER (Fassed on 04-[09/ 2009) 1. This petition is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) against the order dated 23/7/2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipux‘ in unregistered criminal revision dismissed {' the revision filed against the order dated 23/6/2009 Where by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has fixed the case for evidence of the complainant/ respondent in criminal compliant No, 682/06 when on previous petitioner the case was fixed for reply of the complainant/respondent of the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for dismissal of complaint on the ground that complainant has not filed proper affidavit in support of the complaint as required under Section 145 of the Negotiable instruments Act 1881 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that present respondent is not filed any affidavit in proper form as required under Section 145 of the Act \ in support of the complaint the affidavit does not discloses the identity of the persons and authority to file the affidavit or complaint but learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has neither allowed the application nor 3‘ rejected the application and proceeded further for taking evidenw of respondent 3. Ord6r impugned, copy of order of the trial Court and copy of the affidavit perused. 4, It appears that affidavit has been filed along with the complaint in support of the complaint, respondent is not under obligation to file any document and prove of the authority trial Court has not rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner affidavit reveals that he has made sufficient substantial allegation in support of the compliant as required under Section 145 of the Act. Revisional Court has rightly rejected the compliant, l do not find any ground for interference. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. However, trial Court is directed to decide the application filed on behalf of the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. i /l / Sd/- i T. P. SharIXLa/ L //,/_ Judge //¢ \ \ \