KS INTHEHIGHGOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Gr. M. P. No^l OF 2010 SinailolW®^ PETITIOI^ER Tarkeshwar Singh, S/o. late Shri Kuldeep Singh, aged about 72 years, R/o. Subhash Chowk, Near Rawanbhata, Supela, yx Bhilai, Disft. Durg (C. G.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS 0^^^ .•a^ ^^,^'v.-- ^^••••" •••''CS^;\JL^ 51^^- '<^^' :1. State of Chhattisgarh, ThrougH : Distriet Magistrate Durg Distt. Diirg (C. G.) 2. Hiranjan Tripathr@ Lalu^ S/6. Nirmal Chand, aged about 27years, R/o. H. No. 230, Model Town, Bhilai, P. S. Supela, Disfa-ict Durg (C.G.) .^" 3. Akhilesh, S/o. Chhabilal;aged:. about 21 years, R/o.H. No. 94/6, Maitri Nagar, Risbali, BhiIa.i;DistnctDurg(C:G.) (Diedauring thetrial) 4. Pawan Paliya, S/o. Awadh Bihari, aged about 39 years, R/o. H. No. 29, Street No. 15, Smriti Nagar, Bhitai,P.S.SupeIa,,DistrtctDurg . (p.G^ : : ::.."<. 5. Gulab Mahto @ Santosh, S/o. Kishore Mahto, aged abcyt 28 years, R/o. Model Town, Supela, Bhilai, P. S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.) 6. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Gugali, S/o. Kundan Lal Sharma, aged about 29 years, R/o. Model Town, Supela Bhilai, P. S. Supela District Durg (C.G.) 7. Nirajan Tripathi @ Satpati, S/Q. Nirmal Chand, aged about 32 years, R/o. Model Town, Supela Bhilai, P. S. Supela DistrictDurg (C.G.) 8. Sona @ Sanjeev Mukherjee, S/o. Hiraanshu, aged about 32 years, R/o. H. No. 239, Street No, 6, Smriti Nagar Bhilai, P..S,. ^ Supela District Durg (C.G.) PETITIONUNBERSECTION4820F'GRIMINAL PROCEDURECODE ^^-'o HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARHATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr. JusticePritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P.No. 231 of 2010 APPLICANT Tarkeshwar Singh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh and others. RESPONDENTS Shri Shrawan Agrawal counsel for applicant. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondent No.l/State, PETITIONUNDERSECTION 482 OF THE CODE OFCRIMINAL PROCEDURE. O RD E R (/3.04.2010) Present petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 8.3.2010 and 26.3.2010 passedbythe Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 122/2005 whereby learned trial Court refused to put important questions to the accused persons. 2. The-applicant has not filed all the related documents and he has not even stated as to who he is but it appears from the petition aswell as the record that respondents 2 to8 are facing trial for the murder of one Santosh Singh. It also appears from the record that ,< • ." . " •• • . . ' ' the evidence has been concluded by the prosecution and after recordingthe statements ofthe accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, case was fixed for final arguments. It also appears from the petition and the documents filed by the prosecution that one FSL reportAnnexure P-1 dated 11.4.2005 is on record which is marked as Ex. P-34 by PW-6 on 25.6.2009. However, some subsequent FSL report dated 27.4.2006 has also been received by the prosecution and therefore, an application was filed by the prosecution on 6.3.2010 for taking the same on record and for exhibiting the same. Order sheet dated 8.3.2010 reflects thatsaid FSL report dated 27.4.2006 has been taken on record and marked as Ex. P-42. 3. It has been argued by Shri Agrawal that in view of the subsequent FSL report, further statement of the accused under ^ s-~. ,1^ Section 313 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure is to be recorded and the Court is required to put certain questions with regard to the FSL report Ex. P-42 but the said application has wrongly been rejected by the Court below on 26.3.2010. He submits that this rejection will cause injustice to the prosecution and therefore the said order may be quashed. 4. On the other hand counsel for the respondent No.i/State submits that the applicant has not disclosed as to what locus he has for filing the present petition. The applicant has not even disclbsed as towho he is and forwhat he has come to this Court. He submits that application of the prosecution has been rejected by the Court below for putting additional questions to the accused persons and if the State Government has any grievance it only can come forward and not anYstranger. 5. Heard counselforthe parties. 6. From therecord it is not clear as to in what capacity the applicant has filed the present petition. In the entire petition he has not disclosed as to what interest he has inSessions Trial No. 122/20©&r?'Etehas atso not stated as to what prejudice is going to be caused to'tiim. Even if the case is taken on merits, it isapparent that additional documents filed by the prosecution have already been taken on reeordand marked as Ex. P-42 and same being the ex|)erts report can always be read into evidence and the proseeutionaswellas the accusedwould be atlibertytorefertothe same. It is difficult to understand as to what additional questions are required to be put to the accused persons as to the FSL report under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant has not even filed the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Facts as narrated in the petition are so vague that the instant petition cannot be ent§rtained. 7. Accordingly, the petition has no substance at all and the same is hereby dismissed at themotion stage itself. Pritinker Diwaker