IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •< s - ~f ,?"-- flfl.. :^.^.iy^ No. /200^(S.B.l (Arising out of Misc. Cr. Case No.2465/2005) ICANT W^^^^^vS ;^p;.-^';-^^':^-.-^s^ ^•>v.\°) RESPONDENT Vinod Kumar Sahu • S/o. Shri Bisnath Sahu, Aged about- 30 years, ; R/o.- Village Selud, TahsU Patan, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Rajkumari-y^eJ-a^ey^'^'yeA'^, W/o. Vinod KumarfrSahui R/o.- Kailash Chowk, Laxmi Paan Bhandar Ke pass, Shardapara Camp-2, ; P.8.- Chhaowni, Tahsil and Distt.- Durg (C.G.) IN APPLICATION U/S. 482 OF Cr.P.C. FOR ^^ RESTORATIO^N OF MISC. CRIMINAL CASE N0. ..-^' 2465/2005 (BETWEEN VINOD KUMAR SAHU Vs. SMT. RAJKUMARI l DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION ON 23.08.2006 XI-HC-22 3^ ^I'MIO'M, ®Tntl<l<o,Rlcllti^ 311^1 ii^cb *<11MI !»>*<|th """""""""""" W( 200^- R'b< an^T^r R-ficbsn^r sbli'btiRd S3(3 311^1 6+cl|igT(rf?<T 31.01.2007 Shri Jitendra Supta, couns|el for the applicant. None for the respondent. Heard. This is an appiication for was dismissed for want of pr'os4< Court rendering judgment in th othere. _Vs Suiit kimar Rana 32 observed as beloau ; 1-estoration of M.Cr.C.No.246S/Z005 which tcution on 23.08.2006. Hon'ble the Apex matter of Stote pf West Benaal and r^ported in AIR 2004 SC 1851, in para 31 & 31. The High Cour^- exercise ifs Code ofCrimindt thus: "482. Saving o\ Nofhing in thi^ affscf the inh^i inake such ordelf to any order abuse o-f the secure ihe 32. From a bare provision. ii ifj power of the ^ where an ord^t Court which is f\e, ends of Justic^ before a Cowt\ Court. II is, Vi Section 482 of tii'qft-i'ifl-i *iiHci')'iftei<9'<,(Si+<iit ^srf^q'sn^r ccnnot, thus, in siich a situation juifisdiction under Secrion 482 of the ' Procedure. The said provision reads inherent power of High Court — Code shall be desmed to limit or \rent powers of the High Court fo ^s as may be necessary to give effect tAflde under fhis Code. or to prevent p^ocess of any Court or oiherwise to end^ofjustice." perusal of the afore inentioned wld be evident that fhe inherent l^igh Cour't is saved only in a case has besn passed by the criminal fyquired to be set aside to secure the or where -ths proceeding pending csnounts to abuse of the process of ^ierefore, evident thaf power under the Code can be exercised by the High Couri m relarion io a matier pendify XI-HC-22 3n^r?n' 'STI^T OTR?g1i(f shWn .3; <^>- 's^'^Wvf^, v9^\ww,[^v\wy. 3T(^?T HWWl shHlch^..Cx..^..^..'<?t fcl'b«d 200*?- 3)1^T^cTTWHf?(T ."2.- Couri'; mhich ir^ procedure would^mean power is exerci^i Crimina! Procedtl/ Courf had no polyer under 1-he Aci-, exercising its Jilfi. Code of Criniina^Procedure Section 482 does not bar •fl been dismissed for want of prose4 Apex Court in the case of Stat^ of West Bengal (supra) and provisions contained in Section 482 of fhe Cr.P.C., applicant should have filed application afresh, instead filin9 ication which was dismissed applicant, if so advised, may file the Cr.P.C. as second application a^ the orders annexed alon9 with the With the aforesaid direct dismissed. Certified copy as per rules qipifefrrWRfr'ff fs^-tf^i^n: ^isri^R'sn^r the contexf of Code of Criminsl a criminal Courf or whence a •ed by the Court under -the Code of re. Once it is held that the criminai •to deat ivith the properfy seized the question of -the High Cour-t s risdictwn under Section 482 o-f fhe would not arise. ilin9 of fresh applicction if eariier one hcs ;ution. In view of iaw laid down by Hon bie an application for restoration of earlier on 23.08.2006. It is djrected thot application sfresh, under Section 482 of against first dismissed on 23.08.2006 for want of prosecution. Lecr'ned counsel for the aj>plicant proys to retu"n certified copy of petition. Considered. Cer'tified copy of the ord^rs be returned to him on substitution by photocopy of the same wlthin 15 d^iys from today. jon, the application (Cr.M.P.No.10/2007) is Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge