^. '<?)6vl HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PBTITION (227) No. 6925/2009 PBTITIONBR Revisioner RBSPONDBNTS Nar Narayaa Siagh, aged about 74 years, son ofLate Kamta Prasad Siagh, occupation-Advocacy, R/o Debiganj Ward No, 13, Axnbikapur, Near Jayaswal Cmema Hall, Ambikapxir, Distt. Sarguja (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through-The Secretaiy, Departaaient of Hoiae Affairs, Dau Kalyaa Sin.gh Bhawaa, Raipur (CG). 2. Supenntendeut of PoMee -Ambikapur Distt. Saiguja (CG). 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur Distt, Saiyija (CG), 4. Tahsildar-Tah. Ambikapur, District Sai^uja (CG). 5, Naziil Officer-Anibikapur, District Sarguja (CG). 6. Mrigendra Singh, son of Shri Samar Bahadur Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Devigaoj Ward, Ambikapur, Distdct Sarguja (CG). 7. Shivdhaa Jayaswal, S/o Sitaraai Jayaswal, aged about 44 years, occupation -Contractor, R/o ViUage ~ Fundurdeehad (Ambikapur) P.S, /Tah, Amhikapur, Distdct Sai^uja (CG). WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THB COH8TITUTIOM OF INDIA. (8B :Hoa^ble Mr. ToP.Sharma^ J.) Present;- Shri A.N. Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondents No. 1 to 5. ORflI<-ORDBR (Passedoa 26/11/2009) By fhis petition under Ardcle 227 of fhe Constitutioa of India for issuaace of wnt ia fhe nature of certiorari/iiiaiidamus ^aiiist fh.e aufhority. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat present petitioaer has filed fhe complauit ^aiast fhe respondents No, 6 & 7 for fhe offence VA. .-^— puxiishable under Sections 500 469, 471, 120-B offhe ladian Penal Code aad exaDimed himselfaad his witnesses under Chapter- XV ofthe Code of Crimmal Procedure, 1973 (ia short 'fhe Code?) but fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anibikapur has^dismissed fhe complaiat iioder Section 203 of the Code only on fhe ground fhat fhe proceediiig is pendiag before fhe Revenue Court aad unless it is decided fhiat respondents No. 6 & 7 has forged fhe documents, no prfana facie case for takfcag cognizaace ^ainst fhe respondents No. 6 & 7 is made out aad fhereby committed aa iUegalily. Leanied counsel for flie petitioner furfher submits tfaat evidence adduced on behalf of fhe petitioner was for takiag cognizaace of tifcie offences agamst fhe respondents No. 6 & 7 aad same has also not been considered by fhe Sessions Judge ia crimmal revision No, 39/07 vide order dated 4/10/07. Order impugaed reveals fhat accordiag to the case of fhe petitioner so^ae complaiat was sent to the Chief Miaister agaiast the petitioner aad accordiag to fhe petitioner complamt has been made and sent by fhe present respondents No. 6 & 7. Present petitioner aiid his witaesses have deposed fhat present respondents No, 6 8& 7 has fox^ed fhe coinplamt and sent to fhe Chief Miaister but has not stated fhat how they kaew fhe fact. Present petitioner was under obUgation to examicie fhe witaesses before whom flie documents was prepared and forged or to sent ftie documents for examination along with admitted writmg of fhe respondents No. 6 & 7 aad to examine to expert but present petitloner has not examiaed aay persons beforc whomi alleged offence took pls^e or haad writiag expert, m absence of such material evidence the learaed Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur has dismissed the complaiat under Section 203 of fhe Code of Crimiaal Procedure, 1973, In absence 5. 6. 7' of such evidence no option except to dismiss fhe complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was lefk to fhe Judicial Magistrate concemed, Leamed Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anibikapur has not acted ia arbitraxy ua^nner, The Aufhonly/Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anibikapur has neifher failed to exercise jurisdiction vested on it nor exceeded fhe jurisdiction vested on it warraating any issuaace ofwrit ia the naturc ofixilaadamus. Consequently, fhis petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby disiaissed, No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^