jfS^^^^^^^^^^^ .:£:^;12a^^%iER^HEn<iiii<ll>MSBKB •WSWSWWt ^Cr.M.P.^ Nd 1:;^33^::''::,,,of::120:]1.^:: PETITIONER 'lf^' •-:+W»:,f»V.t^**;^*^.»t'.?t^tt<rtM»it»».»<(,,ti»,it,, l.^,^^.-^: It^tttk ti*^ fc*•f>»tr^1i<»»V;!i)i;it>*<A< NON-APPLICANT Sliahriaz Begum, daughter of Mirza AjyiBeg, e^ed abbut 38 years, resident of H.I.Cr. 544,, Hirapur Houslng Spciety, Sawarkar Nagar, Raipur, Ta3^1 and Distrlcf Raipur ::'^C.f.).;;,..?,:,'^ VERSUS Sayyed Sartaj AIi, son QfSayyed Ashraf Ali; a^ed? atoout^^^^^^^^ ^ years, OcGUpation Agricylfurisf resident of Village Kan yia Kunihari, P.Q. KumH^, Thana K^xmhari, 'Tah^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ DistnctDuFg(C.G.}. APPI^CATION^IHIDERS]^TION4820B*THE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (^^ Si t.4.- ^^^^^^^ •t^^'-- •^f^.: ^§SK. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Wlr. JusticePritinker Diwaker CrLM.P.No. 333/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Shahnaz Begum Versus Sayyed Sartaj Ali Shri H.B. Agrawal learned Sr. counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal for the petitioner. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDER (28.06.2011) Heard on admission. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have assailed the order dated 6.5.2011 passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 46/2011 affirming the order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissing the complaint case filed by the petitioner. 2. After considering the factual matrix of the case it has been held by the learned Magistrate that though the ari:icles have been kept by the respondent/accused, there is no evidence on record that they were kept by him with any dishonest intention and therefore neither any case of criminal breach of trust nor any other case is made out against the respondent. The trial Magistrate has also held that even the case under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out against the respondent. Learned Magistrate has also observed that no one had gone to the house of the respondent to collect the articles nor has there been any negotiation in this regard. Revisional Court has also considered all the aspects of the case while holding that neither the offence of • B8S " ^ <_ criminal breach of trust nor the one related to Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the respondent. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order impugned affirming the view taken by the Magistrate in dismissing the complaint case filed by the petitioner appears to be fully justified and warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Accordingly, the petition being without substance is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and it is dismissed as SUCh. -' sdA~"^~" 1 Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^