^T /y^ -^^ *s£<y l^iy'" v^ is'::a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR Criminal Misc. Petition No. 237/2009 APPLICANT Basant Dewar, S/o Bisuu Dewar, ased about 26 years, Resident of Khoraiaala, Baloda Bazaar P.S. Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur (C.G,). KBSPQNDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. State of * Chhattegarh, Through CoUector, Raipur (C.G.). Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baloda Bazaar, District -Raipur (C.G.). APPLICATION UNDBR SBC"TION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hoa'ble Mr. T.P.Sharaa, J.) Present:- Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the State. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 10/7/2009) 1. This is a petition uuder Section 482 ofthe Code of Crmmial Procedure, 1973 (ia short the code) against the order dated 1/4/2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baloda Bazaar ia criminal case N0, 37/2009 whereby learaed Sub Divisioiial Magistrate has passed preluninaxy order under Section 111 of the code and also passed fhe interim order under Section 116(3) ofthe code for furaishiag fhe bond. 2. Learaed counsel for the petitioner subinits fhat wifhout aay preltmiaaiy enquiry after passiag prelimiuary order under Section 111 of fhe Code leamed Sub Divisional Magistrate was not competent to pass aay order under Section 116(3) of the Code auy such order passed under Section 116(3) ofthe Code is iUegal. 3. Leamed coxmsel for the petitioner pkiced reUaace ia the niatter of Chandramani Navak and Others v. State of Orissa and Others teported ia 1991 8TPL (LE-Criml 10881 ORI ia which it has been held :'r»t, iSiltfjB^ ^ !a-.iSSs!ia by the H^h Court of Orissa that without fhe enquiiy haviag been comiaenced Magistrate has not competent to pass auy order under Section 116(3) ofthe Code. 4. Leacued counsel for the State/respondent opposed the petition and subinits fhat Court below is competent to pass order under Section 116(3) of fhe Code after coininencement of fhe Proceeding, Court below has after considering the report of tbe police has passed the prelmunary order under Section 111 of the Code aad after conunencement of the proceeduig has passed iaterim order under Section 116(3) ofthe Code, 5. Order unpugned reveals fhat after cousidering the report of the poUce leamed Sub Divisional M^istrate has passed fhe preliminary order under Section 111 of fhe Code aad also considered the question of breacli of peace has passed the order imder Section 1 16 (3) for which leamed Sub Divisional Magistrate is eiupowered. I do not find auy iUegality ui fhe order impugned warraiiting iuterference under Sectioa 482 ofthe Code. Coasequently, this petition is liable to be disinissed aad it is hereby dismissed. T.P, Sharma Judge