T^T -AII'MI^, ^y^l^, fsj0|^^< © ^IIN^i ^b^lc^ W^ 200 ai?t?r 'Eg^? (^d?^^) '^Ti^l^T'f^ti^ ^SH ^i^y ^^NT ^!_u J^ '^ •^rw^^^i^r <tr.M.P. No.183/2007 (Revision (Single Beneh; un^er Seetion 482 of the Cr.P.C.) Hjan'ble Mf. Justice Dhirendra Mish^ Petitionw Respwidenls 25.7.2007 Mr. Yoge^i Pandey, Mr, @.K. Beriwal, Dy. Hecrd. The petitioner has Additional Sessions Judge, leamed Additional Session^ ^T2?fe?^N "W^ff ^,'fe^ <fa^$8< ^^fanai^ Vs. AB&UL AZIM @ BHON&U, S/o Abdul Kareem @ Solani, A^e about 45 yecrs, R/o In front of Baba Mazar, Maudaha- para, tcd^sil <& DistrJct Raipur (C.&.) 1. STAJE OF CHHATTCS^RH, Jhrough bistrict Ma9istrate, Collectorate Office, Raipur", Oistrict Raipur (C.e.) 2. LOKESH KUMAR, 5/o Lalit Kumor Tiwari, Age About 39 years, R/o Jamuna Kury, Indrowati Coiony, Rajataldb, Distpict Raipur (C.G.) A|dvocote for the petjtioner. ^.6. for respondent No.l. intnjpi^ned the order dated 9.1.2007 passed by 8th R|aipur in CrimJnaI Revision No.286/2CX)6 whereby Judge has dismjssed the crimina} revjsion •••] ^T^T^'f?^ WT^q^T sb^icb L- /'t. T^ ^1^10^, ^Tfi'M^tS, [sf^l^y ^ . 2 ^l^ldl WTN? ^ 200 3?ii?T '^^? (^clf^^) ^^nw^f^r^^ h^rein preferred by the petitjoner possed by learned Sub DJvisional Learned counsel for th^ Divisional Magistrate without pa CrP.C. has straightffway orderle|ct which is not permissibJe under considered by leamed Additional I have heard learned coynid I hav€perused the order| also the impugned order passed b^ From perusd of the ordei) basis of report submitted by Maudhapara, Raipur that both connection with dispute per'tainij the ^ituatjon exfst (^hjch may o^ accordingly, exercisjng the pow^r question has been attached and House Officer. Learned Additional Sessl provjsiohs of Sections 145 & 146 passed by the Sub Divisional Ma^i GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 — 50,000." cni<if<n<fli ^(^<riT ^T fe^t <f^1^|< "^ 3TRFT 3TT^7 agdnst the ordep dated 21.8.2006 ^agistrate, Raipur in Case No.1724/06. petitioner submits 1+iat lewned Sub ssing cBiy order under Section 145 (1) of attachment of the dispufed proper-ty, the law <md this aspect has not been |Sessions Judge al^> in the impiyned order. |el for the petitioner. ^assed by the Sub &JvisianaJ Mags'strate <^ Jeorned Additional Sessions Judge. dated 21.8.2(X)6, it is evident that on the l|he Station House Officer/ Polfce Station the parties are engoged in quarrel in hg to House Kto.27/7, he is satisfied with |:casion breach of^peoce in the locality and [46 .'. ^r under Section A§£(1) the propert^ in }iven in the interim custody of the Station >ns Judge after considering the relevont of CrP.C. and after perusing the order istrate has heid that -ttiat order passed by ^o 3'SST '^1^10^, y>T{i'M<lfi, fsf<?i>iy^< Tn^ir *t<(cb \ 3TT^TcRT-f^rii^ WT^T^T ^qw V :- ^. W^ 200 3n^?r xra^ c^cif^^) ^^TTW^^T^T^T Sub Divisional Magistrate is further held that it is open tc the competent CiviS Court ar rejected. In vie^ of the above, committed any ilJegaiity or revisjon has no substance, the| dismissed. Hc%yever, td<ing consi case and further considerirt 2.8.2CX36, lecrned Sub DJvisiof expeditiously. il-rictly in accordance wtth low and ^has been ^i^^i ^i^nf ^f fezf iP^^K '^3?RFT37T^t fft, the pcrties to get their rights ascelptojned by ^- |d with these findings the revision has been / •he learned AdditionQJ Sessions Judge has not ifirmity in passing the impugned order. The some is tiable to be dismissed ond it is hereby lerotion the facts and circumstances of the that the property stands attached ^ince ial Magistrcrte is directed to decide the matter s<v- DhirendraMishra Judge • GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 — 50,000.