mah gsmh T HI CHIGRH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No; s5 kL5r12007 , -Dr. Anita'S'ood, Daughterrof- Late Shri D.K.Sood, age _ about 52 years, resident ;of House No. 2 Road No. E2, ,f" ' Sector No.9, Bhilai Nagar', Tahasil ._ 85 ' r District ,DIirgV ' (C.G.).V Offlce Address: Senior r Doctor Jawahar Lal'Nehi‘u Hospital Sector 9 Bh11a1 (C G) :_ V é if VERSUS V: Sudarshan Sangari S/go.» RESPONDENT ' » Late , Shri Chamanlal ‘ Sangari age 59 years, res1dent > of S M E2, Padmanabhpur Durg (C G) MISCELLLANEOUS PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 {OF Cr.’P.C. $ IN HE HON’BLE GH COURT OF HATTSA 7 1 i \ u g HJ ingle Bench Hon’b!e Mr Jus'hce Pritmker' Diwakm" No 545 cf 2007 Dr Arum 509d Daugh’rar' of Lat Shm D K Scod Versus udur‘shqn Sangari son of Late. $hr-i Chamania! sangar'i 5hri Prgvin Dgs; coumgj fer *he pafifigner Sm‘r Fouzm Mnr'za counse! for' The respondent N UNER $ECON 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIINAL PROCEDURE resenf pe’rrhon filed under Sechon 82 of The Cae of v riminal Procedure 1s dwected aamsf the Impugned order med 1892007 passe y ddmonol ief Julolq! agistrae urg In compimn‘t case No 2151/2007 where ffer mkmg cogmzance of a complain? case learne o d qglsfr'afe as dmected for fe reIsTr'ahon of an offence nder echon 4 o te Indian Penal Code O R D E R (09342010) earned Maglsfro’re alleging m 11 tho‘r he was The fomdy frien of Im‘e Shm D K Sood father of The pehhoner an before hi death he had execu‘red a w!“ In favour of The peTITIoner o 31 3 2003 In respecf of PioT o 475 sTTuoTed aT ehru Noga {Easf} Bhiiou D!sh‘ Dur If Is aeged fho? m resped of fh Will o laTe DK ood There was dlsuTe be’rween Th Brief facts of The case are 1hm‘ on 10 3 2006 a complain? case was flled by “the respondenT/complamant before the l d d s n N / N r ' ‘ g H e ’ f S p e I' peTmoner and her moTer and er moTher ad refused To give affidavit and no ojec’rion certificafe in favour-“of ,fhe V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BI ’ S j Cr M P e S P 4 d u , C g d d b A Ch d Mt D by $ D TI M ' M h h g ‘ u S 68 f h b .1 h h h @ petitioner far Tmn$fer 9f The said pie? and The; pefifiqner gm? fmnsferred The. said pEaT in her favour affer' farggring the, signature af hem mothen In supparf 9f its gage, ggmments 9f campmmam ¥ Sudgrshgn $qnggri (CW-1} gnczi {ma U5hq3 {QW-z) warg ‘ recorded and ieamed Magi5Tm‘re had ($.50 called far that mpww‘ from The cancemed poHce .Smtion and after invegfigmign, the I {epor'f was submif'red by The ccmerned peiice stafian The? #he rcekaeiaém has been filed by me ccmplainam on account of 5‘ s’rmined relaflons be’rween the 1’wo families. It has else been s’rafed byu'llqe ‘pclice fhal' molher' 0f The petitioner hag l admii‘ted her Eignaiure an The No Objec'rian Certificate 5”' However, vide impugned order dated 18.9200? leerneci’iricii Ccurt has regisfered an effenee against the petitioner under Sec’rion 468 of ihe Indian Penal Code. Hence The present peii'rion. 4. \ While enieri‘aining The peiition, on 2811.200? this Court, has granted stay in favour of the petitioner and sinoe then the proceedings of the court below are stayed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that firstiy the respondent hos no right whatsoever to file the complaint as he hos no locus whoteoeverl He submits that the piot beiongs to the father of the petitioner and as per the will, the same has been transferred in her favour and before transferring the plot, her mother had given No Objection Certifieate and had also filed an affidavit which was also aonfirmed by the police whiie investigating the matter and thus there remainsnothing on which basis the petitioner can be prosecuted. He submits that present is a classic case of abuse oi‘ the power by the @ Cour? bgiow and, w‘hzreforg, The entire. campiaini as fiiaci by Thg responden? dgservgs Tc be quashada 6. On *he ofher' hand, ccunsal far Tha raspandem‘ suppnr+s The impugned crder and submi’rs That once. The. Hayldwri'ring expert has given ’rhe reperf in saying 1M? ma‘rher m‘ the pefifioner‘ has noT put her signature on The documenfrs, petitioner- hcms rightiy been pmsecufed by The Cour? beiow. 7, l have .eard caun5ei'far the parties and perused The hmafer‘iu! available on record“ 8. Frolm‘afhe record it is apparent That ‘rhe maths!" af fhe petifionei‘ hascm‘egor-ically stated fhm‘ if is she wha had given No Objectian Cerfificafe in favour of her daughten She alga sfafes That she ia living with her daughfer and They are having good reiafrions‘ Admit‘rediy, originaiiy *he preperty was of the fai'her of The peiii'ioner, there exist a will in favaur 0f the petitioner, mather cf the petitioner has no objection whatsoever for transferring the plat in favour cf the petitioner, the respondent/cempleinant hes no authority whatsoever to file a complaint against the petitioner“ This is especially when after enquiry the police has given the finding that the complaint has been filed as the relations between the complainant and the petitioner family are strained. 9. This court is of the oonsidered opinion that such complaint is not tenable in the eye of law and, therefore the proceeding in respect of'complaint ease Nov 2151/200? pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burg is quashed. Sdl- ¢ yrit‘mkk Diwak‘er Judge ’ 10. Petition is thus allowed