WWW 3911mm mmm mum-vimiwm $3ifa'nm 4‘\x SB :HON’BLE CR‘ SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. M.P. NO 260 OF 2007 l l i ‘ APPLICANT Smtl Phool Bai W/o Shri Late Kosle, aged 4O yearg, caste Satnami, R/o Village Ameri, RS, Chakabhata, District: Bilaspur (C.G‘) J NON-APPLICANTS t i l 1 1. R. Chakrawal’ci, S/o late B.L. Chakrawaxti, aged 60 years, Retire Estate Manager, Q. No.C—45, C.M.P‘D.I Coiony, Bila'spur (CG) 2. \I‘ Bakaj, s/o 1ate P‘ VelanmhemJ aged 44 years, Superintendent Geologist, C.M.P.D.I Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Uttam Kumar Mukherji, S/o late A.Nl Mukhelji, aged 43 years, Finance Manager, C.M.P.D.I Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through RS. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 08.08.2007 Shri A.P. Sharma, Shri G.K. Beriwa1, No.4. counsel for the applicaut. Dy. A. G. for the State/non- applicant mm (W) WWW Macaw amm- WWW Wmw¥fg€rm %aimm By this petition under the applicant] complainant h 7th March 2006 passed in c1‘ Mhareby lcarned Special Jud Sgssions Judg€, Bi1a$pur a1: by the non-applicants No. 1 dated 10.1.2006 passed by First Class, Bilaspur in crim ioffence under Sections 294 3(2)(11) of the Scheduled (Prevention of Atmcities) Act‘ \ Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as impugned the order dated 'iminal revision No. 56/2006 ge, Atrocities and Additional owing the revision preferred to 3, has set aside the order learned Judicial Magistrate inal case No. 38/06 by which 506B, 452 of the IPC and Casts fr. Scheduled Tribe , l 1989 was registered. Learned Special Court earlier complaint of the prea of same alleged incident file has been dismissed with untrue complaint has beer allowed the revision of the 1 the impugned order dated 7t] V’The argument of learne i counsel for the applicant is that the first complaint was the same was dismissed on by the learned Magistrate considering the fact that the lent applicant on the ground d before the JMFC, Bilaspur a finding that a false and L filed by the complainant, 10n~applicants No. 1 to 3 by 1 March 2006. not dismissed on merits but the basis of report called for from the concerned police nh GRPRJ ,— FS/246 2/2007 ‘ 50.000. ,_r#—.:~-n mm mm (WW) wt 200 WWW WW wW Mm'anéar station and there was no adjudication of the matter on merits. Submission of Icarnm cannot b6 accepted becauSe of the impugned order i‘: complaint was dismissed by a finding that it Was fil grounds. In the result’ the in: devoid of substance is lia admission stage itself and is i4 i counsel for the applicant from perusal of paragraph 1 1 is evident that the said the learned JMFC recording ed on false and imaginary ;tant revision petition being ble ‘to be dismissed at the accordingly, dismissed. i i i t i i i L3“ GRPRJ—FS/246 2/2007 50,000.