^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. Cr. /2010 Shaniram Suman, s/o Shri Pilwaram Suman, Aged about 49 years, r/o Village - Singhanpuri, PO. Pasid, PS. Kosir, Tehsil - Saranghgarh, District - Raigarh (CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through PS - Kotwali, District-Durg(CG) , x^. .^\>- --^y^y". >^'..--' .--'^r^e'"'" ^^•^:^ »1C» '^ \f7-' Petitioner Respondent CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION UNDER SECTION OFTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ss'^, ^K^'- Bt €• fy HI61-i COURT 0F CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILA PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS Cr.M.P.No.SlSof 2010 Shanimm Sunian State of ChhGttisgarh Shri Kshitiz Sharma,counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhil Wishra, t)y. 6oyt. Advocote forthe State. APPUCATION UNDER SECTIQN 482 OF THE CO&E W &R:bER Present petition filed under Section 482 of theCodeof Criminal Procedurs is for quashment of the Cr'iminal Case No. 633/2008 pending befopethe Judicial Magistrafe, First'CSass, &ur^gpi$ing out of Crime Np.'139/1996.~ 2. Main contention of the petitibner is thdt F.I.R.'was regtstered c^inst him on 3.4.t99S^ chatlan wos filed on 'Sl.l2.1997fortheoffencesunderSectioris409,-42G;467, 468, 471 and 1203 of the Indiari Penal Cod®but tiil date the case hasnot been decided arid on account of this alone,the entire proceedings deserves to be qyashed. It has been furt'her put forth by the petitioner that on merits also no case ^ • is made out against the petitioner qnd therefore, continuation of ffie triat is causing greaf hordship to him and is adyersety ^dffecting his eoTeer prospects. 3. Sb fdr as order passed by this Court in the Meshram Vs, State ofChhattisgarh.is 'petitioner- cannot'deriye any bensfit fromthesome thcrt- case, the order of frcsming charae itself waseha beGEajss in lenaed in ^ o i^ theyear 2003 arid ujti the case in hand, assailing the initial :the said pet|4-!Qn:was ajtoweA Ih had slept for iong time wi-t'hout '1 . • •" ~.; . . ^ ^ ihgs and evferi paTticipating in the same. ! .. . :: : ' :, • ^ : A. From the reeord, it is apparent that the petitioner is aware about the pr'esent edse since 1996, when the FIR was lodged against him. Rjrthgr he has receiyed the copy of the? chargesheeton 13.12.1997 anSeventKe dicrges werefrcnned againsthimQr! 2.4.2002. Retitioner'hosriot bothered to approach this Court challenglng any of the eaplier aGt of the prosecution crid had decided t6 pcrticipate in the proeeedings. Al! of a sudden now his contention is thori' on merits, hs hds good cqse, theTefore,pr6eeedings be qudsheci,this Gpurt isof' the^Gonsidered^Qpinionthff^afthebelatedstagewherette petitioogp4%pt (juite fornumber of years,no interferencecan be cailed for 6n the msrits of the ease. 1-lowever, as •t'he charges were framed against the petitiatter on 2.4,20Q2, it is e;<^ted from the trwl Court toepncludethetr'ia!^^^^^^^ poissjble Srid thefrialrCpur^wi^^^^ sarne. 5. Copy of this order be sent to the and aisQ to'theeoncerned OistF'iCt'S'udg® thematter. ^ tpiffll Judge also-look into Sd//- Pritinker Diwaker Judge