Single Bench cdlldild'fl' rfi|c|cft3T 3^ c^i<yidd| lcicii^i^ 15.3T. C.R.M.P. No. ^^ /2008/SB cTStft ^1<1, Pt^TT ^FT^ ^m. 'ra - 27 ^. o^q^i^ srf^^TT, P|tj|<rf| — q^R ^T^CT ^ ffr^, (Tt^T, s-TPTT tfk^T, fuIcTT Rdl'H^ Oc?.7T.) .3fl^Rct>|/4Rct|f^41 'y ^A- ^•"y.-A"6 -^' ^y,--^ ^' lcKnsS 1. ^ft.c^. *1lplt0, ^uftPUR, •1JI>;4lfc1<h f5TIm R^ll'tf^, Plcll'tTl — <lulR>?l1< 'PR, Rlc1l'M4,'; C^.^T.) 2. 3|?|1<<i f^ETpft, PRTT - ^TPTT^T, ^N^ ^^111<< aTPTT ^Tk^T, ^r^. ? furar R<ii'«4,'; (^.^T.) .....—.—3i'rii^c;<t»/3fi'<1lTI<i"i 3T1^cT IRT SI^cOfcT EJTCT 482 ^S yRb<i)l ^T^cTT HI6H CQURT OF CHHATfISSARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench ; Hon'ble Mr; Justice Pritinker &i CR.W.P. No. 604 of 2008 PETITIONER Laxmi Kumari Vsrsus RESPONOENTS C.K. Manik & another Shri Shcshi Kumar Kushwaho.,counse! forth.e petitioner. PETETEON UN&ER SECTION 482 OF THE COt)E OF (07.01.2010) Heard on admission. Presenf petition is directed ago.inst the i.mpugned or'der' dated 7.8.2068 pdssed by 6 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in criminal reyision No. 127/2008 affirming the orde" dated 1.7.2008 passed by Chief Judicia! Magistrate, Biiaspur, 2. From the record it appearsthat on 30.1.2008 a comp!dnt case was filed by the petitioner against the respondents o.lleging in it that on 20.3.2008 the t-esppndents came to h.is house along with other employeesof theCorporotion and the policeaid haye started demolishing the boundary wall cmd one portion of the house of the complainant.It is allsged that when they were asked not to remove the said construction, respondents have started abusing the petitioner and his family members and have aiso assaulted them.as a result of which the petitioner:has sustained injuries. ''\^ . -/.*••• '^-"-^ E. ;! ys ':'^;s:- 0- the concerned poiice station under Section 156 of the Code o.f Crimina! Procedure. After inquiry, the report was submitted by the concemed police Stotion ciearly indicating tho.t on the government land encroachment was made by the fojniiy member's of the pstitioner ond despite dus opportunity, illegal construction was not remoyed by them.It has further been mentioned in the report that when thecorporation smployees have gone to remove ths encroachment, t.hey were abused and the compSainant tore out her ciothes of her own and then started raising hue and cry. It also comes from the report that the complainant had receiyed some injuries on account of fa!i of the roof. 4. The entire evidence as adduced bythe complaincint and the police rsport was considered by the ^.agistrote and after appreciating the evidence, lear'ned M.ag.istrate has dismissed'the complaint case and against this order of the AAo.gistrate, revision was preferred and the same has also been dismissed. 5. I do not find any grouhd to interfere with the coRcurre.nt findings of the courts beiow as according to me there is no iljegdity or perversity in the same. 6. The petition fails and is accordingiy dismissed at the motion staqe itseif. < ' , . Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker iJii^^s* i