iv^. ""-f' Oi.aare IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. i6-i Cr.M.P. No. of2010 PETITIONER f^- '. . i.«;si-i''^~ ^^&wS^ ^^^^s Swr^9 ^ff^ Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Chandrakar, aged about 28 years, R/o Village ^^•(Rapa, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. * VERSUS 1. State of C.G. through the District Magistrate Kabirdham, District Kabirdham C.G. 2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. PET!T!ON_UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 RESPONDENT ^5?%. ';-tsai-iff-22 1 '^£aVT 'S^^PIT^PT, »Tl1*i'16, .<^.^.J',i^>,€»fc/T-°10 *11*IPITWW^ ^-, 3IR?T^iI f?1'!?)'311^1 ^qwgf^T SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. ^irafeRh tiTRcif-^ fe^ i^nsre i; srfigii sni^r 10-12-2010 Shri Rakesh Pandey, coun^el for the petitioner. Shri A. K. Shukla, Panel Lajfvyer for the State. Heard. This petition is directed |against order dated 13-09-2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, |<abirdham, by which revision filed by the petitioner against prevent ^e actfon and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, F^indariya under Seclion 110 (rf the Cr.P.C., has been dismfesed. Learned counsel for the p^tttfoner submBted that against the petitioner as well as against C]handrasekhar, who is co-accused along with the petittoner in cri^ninal cases arising out ctf Crime. Number 92, 103 and 88 of 20C|9 has been regi^ered and on the basis of those criminal cases, th^ proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as well as agair(st the sakl Chandrasekhar whteh culminated in order dated 05-10h2009. Before that, in case of other co-accused- Chandrasekhar, shjnilar order was passed by the Sub Divfeional Magistrate on 22-09-?009. Learned counsel submits that co-accused- Chandrasekhar a^ well as the petUfoner preferred revision against the orders pas^ed in their cases. Leamed counset submits that as on the date whe|n the revision was listed for hearing, it oould not be pointed out to tl petitfoner and Chandrasekhai counsel submits that in the ca te Court below that the case of the are similarty situated. Learned >e of Chandrasekhar, the revisional Court has passed an order on 2^-09-2010 and his reviston has been [^•?fi3^ s!!fe..'lS&*": XI-HC—7S •HiHMi «»<n^ 3':5ET'^ITqRTq, ®tll+l4|(o,fqcliyy . Cr^.?, ^•<?<^^&^ sn^?T 'v^v ('^3^1) 311^1 ^il ftli'* 'nen ^TT^TT s^qbi ^WR ^lfCT 3H^?I alluwed un Uiy giuuiid Uial llie <^n[CT*di ^Hcii' "^f fe^ ^^x ^aifgiTsn^i pub Divi&ional Magistrate did not consider the case properly anc( without proper consideration and that same grounds existed in his Chandrasekhar has been made 88of2(X» On the other hand, learnec) learned revisional Court has the Sub Dhnsfonal Magistrate h< passing the prohibitory order on placed before it.andtherefore, Court has set aside the ordei) Magistrate though of a co-accus^ any relief. 1 have gone through tt4 revisional Court in the case of t Chandrasekhar. It is found that by the Magistrate against the Chandrasekhar mainly on the ba( Crime Number 92, 103 and 8$ aforesaM cases, in the case revisional Court perusing the ord< has come to the conclusion that orders were passed meehanically( cyclostyle orders were passed ienquiry. Learned counsel subrrits (jase also. The petitioner as well as ^iccused in Crime No.92, 103 and State counsel submitted that the disn|ussed the revision by holding that |is not committed any iltegality in t|ie basis of the material whteh was m^rely because in another case, the passed by the Sub Divisional >^d, the petitioner is not entitled to order passed by the learned th^ petitioner as also in the case of (jriminal proceedings were initiated rtetitioner as well as against one iis of criminal cases arising out of of 2009. On ttie basis of the |of Chandrasekhar, the tearned >r of the Sub Divisional Magistrate t>roper enquiry was not made and XI-HC-22 sn^i-^T R-)i<*> sn^v ^l4 <lf?fl Tumairi 'S^r -qi<i|if4, »fl1yi<c, (siciiyy ^.C^.TO..Lt.toJ.6-6/ZAj o aTter're'iwgfN -^ °fii<<f<fiili iniRjf ^ fsist <.Ri|wi< ^? srfigii 3ii^r Therefore, under these cjircumstances, considering that the petitioner is abo one of the ajccused in aforesaid three criminal cases which have been made Magistrate against him, in the o basis for passing the order by the rinion of this Court, the Court below has not given due and proper ]consKleration to the entire materiat and circumstances of the case l^efore dismissing the revision. Accordingly, the order psjssed on 13-TO-2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdhan i^ hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the revision|al Court to duly conskler the entire facts and circumstances of the] case, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitfoner, pa^s appropriate orders in accordance wfth law. In view of foregoing, t^ indteated above. e petition is altowed to the exterit Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge -L—.—. [-^^fe-4