BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. No. : . ,3 /200?2/‘ PETITIONER : Alam sag/o. Late Pyariénfm aged COMPLAINANT aobut 45 years, Occupation-Servuce (Peon), R/o. ' Village—La|méti, P.S. .W‘ Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1 Sanjay, S/o. Shivnath Xalxo‘, aged ACCUSED PERSONS about 23 years, .w PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 201362007 ’d PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO.188 006, BY THE / SECOND/ ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE (F.T.C.), SURAJPUR, DISTRICT SARGUJA IC,G.), ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 05.‘GT.2006, PASSED IN UNREGISTERED COMPLAINT CASE, BY THE J.M.F.C.;"" SURAJPUR, DISTRICT SARGUJA (C.G.)r‘“ 2. Barn Shankar, ‘S/o. Badrinath Prasad, aged about 22 years K‘ 3. BudhgRam @ Bodhanram, Slo. Rajendra, aged about 23"years 5‘7 AII by Caste-Uraon, Occupation— P’R N ............ y 5h“ Waecn‘g" Agriculture/Labourers, R/o. ViHage- Bhagwanpur—Khurd, P.S. Jainagar, “madnuui-v" Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) PETITION UIS. /’ 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL M HIGH CGUR’E‘ QF CHEAT‘FESGW IET EELASPEFR §B : HDN’BLE MR. JUS’HSE KDRXTXTJ’KER Ei‘WAKEig ¢R.M.P..XSI$. 33 12$IB8 :Pm‘g'rmmxa Aim Sm ’ RE$¥QEE3ERTS Saajay 3:, Qthm‘s Shri AKPraSad. COUI1$£i {or ti " giaiifioner. 8hr: Arum Shuiila, couzzsa'i for L mspoadents. 9ETITiox Ummk sgmiom 4&2 m» ’i-HE cam: {3F ammmi. mammmg “K GWER 133.35.291 13 En {ha gumséent 33aiif1'011 IEEég‘é. m Smzirm $82 CLPIE, ghailmge s ”m We ordez daiad 20.6.07 gmsseii E3}; the ‘swaw‘ Addaiozml Sesm'ans Jmigs (FTC)? F mu‘, éimrict Suyguja 312; R‘ev No. iSéEfOb Whare‘izy the ’eajner‘ mvishnai cm’u’t b3§ gfi thé ar si:d 573$ pas;$&d hy- Judiciai ‘vhgistri: Firv (Shag; Surajpur digmissiag tha com:iaimé Ax §1€c§ by EEK paiitisusr. 4?} facm afthr: cas$ are i11at on $33.85, a cwru;33aini cam was 136:? by Tim 13:??incnerg campiainam agamq+ affl€ i~$§pmldamS aileging ihat on 5. 1g“4 ha wen? re Keshav “agar for ‘ihc 12‘sa1333 a: a? big daugh J 67:: his mofornyclé Eém Herd? CG m: Ej.m,w. h. is alleged ma: whils rstzmlinsr u he stov .xwad in til: hmlge: ofi1i$ 3"5’5vr: at viliaga Bhagwanpur Khurd aim: pail—wad hiss vahkt‘irf: in rim coarqr‘ard/ howwer km couk} not mks oz}? fhc’: kay. it s fi‘arthar a‘iiagcd $31 “‘r about 8.30 pm. Wh€11 he cairn“ (mt? he, Emmi hiS vaaick miwigg and upon search. on 7.12.04 ha caLw f0 knew tha‘i; i? is me: msyondams who had taken his whisk Wifhou? ai mm£ Ms coxxsam. and haw ccmmitfsd fha offence of theft. Accordirxg to tha cam‘jpjmam; aféta' taking his vehick: the, rwpondenm . with an accwkirmf éa a 953ml? a?" whiuh his whisk wag complemiy damagc‘ci and this}? 16ft it mear }in it: gnwc- 4 3n \ J\w.._m.u.§ .3 1 r 3 ‘1‘ ‘E r é ai r a ~ 1 \ Lakhanpur. Accsrdimg to :he comylaiuamr. as hi$ whkhs vmi .“, x dam‘agvc he mfnmec’i to accapt iha Sams am} documant wa‘s, :‘txamfa 'I‘K ’ 1.7V $16 resnomiem‘s to pay R3. §.2,DCO gash {totaling m Q3 3§0GQ§ t ‘ke campiaixant but: thr: sama has 110?. haém Dam, “A has aikgad ihat m ‘u kdafs o?” iiég'rig iha comylaiilt (imp? axgcuting tht: d0c:umcnt, fi’m amount has 11m 13e6‘a paid t0 him and ha had €ffa€fi §311aacia1 loss. hr: has aiso akgr thee: an 3.2. 12.04, a napalm wag ladgagi a; L Pb. w t as 116 was a$Sumd §br the pavméint of i'ha vehivig ha Comm not {"116 fha rrxwgiamt ma an ear‘q-J dais. The (iamp‘iaimmi has; also aliegsd that befbre iEEing the cenpiaint m1 §48.{}5 and 24.8.05 he mafgs a ra-poxf t0 the pa‘xies but as. my actien was Takarg.‘ he. Ekil a cam13hiut ca$a He haS also ailiigsd that h: ‘md. k613i Rs. 1100 in i215: dickev of his vehicie out of which Ré. 500 was spent by the accused nersons however they hav€ returnéd him Rs. 600. 3. Aftar ramming the aviécxwg on behaif 0f the a§p1icann vidr; m‘der da‘md 5.7.06 the karaed magistrats has dismissed tbs compisjxlt by homing that aftsr fging of the complaiiix. tbs pol-'zca rsport was caikd and. from me mm mport it I’S clear tha£ i. is rim compEainant who himsaif had given hi$ vahicia to the respondams. According to the ieamed magiStrate on me dato of mckient, fhe complainant had consumed axcsss Eaguor he, was not in a posifion to drivo the vchide and ?hem was soms quarro}, betwson him rmd his Wife and Thom it is the comloiainarit who requostod the, acollsofk worsens to taksaway the: vshicle. The court has former givsn a iindi-ng that aftor the: accid em. a dooumont was executed by tho respondonis showéog {hat they woum componsate the oompiaioant hy paying Rs. 12000 each { is. tofaiing to Rs. 35,090) to €136 comp'iainémt arid “(his document has aiso boon food by the, complainaxrt. The court has further hem thaf there is o0 document on roooréf to Show as to Whether a11y report was lodged by the complainaat before the po‘u’oe. In a‘he revision. learned revisionai court has aji‘umed the fimiiog as given by the learned magistrate statmg that :he iagi‘eéiients of the offence under Section 3‘79 IPC are not ai‘tracted. 4. Contention of 8131i Prasad couosei for the petitioner is that on the basis of the documents; comoiaint anti the evicieiice of the 1 ap‘91icazxt it is clear fhat ofi‘ence under Section 379 £PC is made out against thg resgondents. Hs submits that an altogsthtir diffgrgnt story has been put forth by the police Without thaw heizxg my basis and thsrafore tha complaint ought to have besn entertained by the court below. He further submits that the learned magis‘irate ought to ‘1ave seen the tenure of the com-pEaint and has erred in 13w in ignoring the document {Annexure A! 1) which is a regnort date¢i 12. 12.04 lodged by the petitioner. o. On the other hand, opposmg the impugned judgment it has been argued bV Shri Shukla that even if the emire ease is taken as it is offence under Section 379 {PC is not made out against them. He submits that as per the (iocumemv (Annexure A] TL} itself on 7.12.04 the petitioner came to know about his vehicie arm yet he (iid, not loc‘tge the report till 12.12.04. He further submits that after the execution of the so calleci document, the petitioner waitecl for more than six months and then the report was looiged. Accoramg to him, at best this would he a case of civil liability where the petitioner is at liberty to hie appropriate case against. the responients. 6. Heard couesel for the parties and perused the record“- From the record it is apparent that on 5.12.04 the vehicle ef the petitioner is allegeci to have been stoien and on 7. 12.04 he came to know about the fact that it is the respondeuts who had taken the vehicie and damaged. it yer, the petitioner lodged the teport o 12.12.04. Further the (locument was executed by the respoedents though not indicating the (iate but from the statement of the petitioner same appears to 'be dated 5.12.04. The petitioner again waited for more thaii six months and when the respontients have riot fuLfilied their promise, he filed the comeiamt case. 7. Consideiilig ah the aspects of the case; I am of the considered View that the orcier passer} by the ieained magistrate and, that of xevisional couit are in accortiai'ice with law ané there is no heiirmity iii the same am? no interference can be called for in the petition fiieci wider Section 482 of the Coaie of Cmmal Proceiiure speeialiy when both the Courts beiow have consiiiered all the aspects of the case arid n has givem concurrsnt finding. Thu3, tha petitign as fitttd cannot be: entertained anti is hereby dismissed. if tbs petitioner so dssim may avail appmpziats remedy avajiable under ths iaw. ”vv——N ' ”sdh ' 7g Pritinker Diwaker g Judge