IN THE COURTIOE DISTRICT JUDGE. RAIPUR REVIEW PETITION NO. gj OF 2009 In The maffer of: igTWW mmw w.P. (c) No.31T6§)09 decided on 15%,}.2009 bemeen: Pefifioners: Sm‘r. Sanfoshi Manikpur‘i & anr' Versus Respondents: Siafe of ChhaHisgarh & ofhers APPLICANTS SnH. Sanfoshi (Pefifioners) (I (/1. Manikpuri, wife of Shri Mannu Manikpuri, aged obouf 28 year's, resident of Bungaliparo, Sarkanda, Bilaspur. Mannu @ Shyam Das Manikpuri, aged abou’r 33 year's, residen’r of Bangalipara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur. Vs NON—APPLICANTS k (Respondents) (d Smfe of Chhuffisgorh, fhr‘ough The Secrefary. Minisfr'y of Home, D’K.S. Bhowon, Monfralayo, Roipur. 2»: The Superinfenden‘r of Poiice, BHcspur‘, Dish‘ic‘r Bilaspur (CG) 3 The Sfa’rion House Officer, Police STaTion Sarkanda, Biiaspur, ” a/ Chho‘ru, son of Shri REVIEW PETITION ON THE ANALOGY OF ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH RULES 75 & 76 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES, 2007 ac WW HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M Review Petition N0. 81 of 2009 Applicants Versus Smt. Santoshi Manikpuri & another \nj’o Non-applicants State of Chhattisgarh & others (Application for Review of the order dated 15.7.2009 passed in W.P.(Cr) No. 3407/2009) Shri V. Chopda, Advocate for the applicants. espondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the ORDER torai) (Passed on this 7m day of January, 2010) Heard. I.A.No.l is ordered, as prayed for. Delay is condoned. The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 15.7.2009, passed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 3407 of 2009 ( Smt. Santoshi Manikpuri & another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), with the prayer to pass other necessary order. 2. This Court on 15.7.2009 having examined the matter in W.P.(Cr)No. 3407 of2009, passed the following order z “2. Challenge in this petition is to the lodging of First Information Report (FIR) under crime No. 111/2009 for offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 294, 506 & 323 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The main plank of argument of Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that the City Superintendent of Police in his report to the Superintendent of Police dated 20-5-2009 (Annexure — P/4) has stated that no case has been made out against the petitioners by Shri Ashok Sharma, Assistant Sub Inspector. 4. In normal course, this Court should not interfere with the investigation by the police on a report lodged by a person in Police Station. Be that as it may, since the case is at the investigation stage, the petitioners are at liberty to bring this - r VA fact into the notice of the Superintendent of Police or Investigating Officer, for taking appropriate action.” The prayer and the grounds mentioned in the review petition appear to be misconceived. If the applicants have anymgrievance of whatsoever nature, they may approach appropriate forum that may be availabie to them under provisions of law. The applicants have not pointed out any manifest error on the record and the applicants have not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the applicants. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule l of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the applicants have not produced any ground for review. It appears that the applicants by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the applicant should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. ( See Smt. Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kurnar Chowdharyl, Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of India and othersz, Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others3, Government of T.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others" and Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd, and otherss . As a result and in view of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. Sci/— Satish K. Agniiiotri Judge Thakur 1AIR 1995 so 455 2 AIR 2000 so 1650 3 AIR 2000 sc 85 4 (2005) 2 soc 332 5 (2005) 6 SCC 651