Cr.M.P. No.822 of 2010 Dinesh Kumar Goyai @ Dinu, S/o-wr Balbir Prasad Goyal. aged about 38 'years, R/o Amarkantak Road,“ Gaurela. District Bilaspur (C.G.) Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, ‘hrough w Divisional Forest Officer. Forest Division Katghora, District Korbaw (co) Forest Range Officer. Madanpur, Kendai Range. Madanpur. District Korba (C.G.) ‘ (Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.)‘ v (SB: Hon’bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Mr.A.K.Prasad, counsel for the petitioner. MLRakesh Kumar Jha, Dy.Govt.Advocate for the respondents/State. ; ORDER ORA (Passed on 3 March, 2011) . By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashment of criminai proceedings med before the Judicial Magistrete First Class, Katghora on the basis of P.O.R. (F.l.R.) lodged by forest oflicer in P.O.R. Nos.9694/10 and 12/2007. . lhaVe perused the petition and copies of other documents tiled on behaif of the petitioner. . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although information/report of forest offlcer contents presence of one maruti vehicle, in which the ward ‘Goyal’ was written in the back glass and same person has threatened the forest officer but such officer has not identitied that person as a present petitioner, but in statement of another forest guard Ashwani Kumar Dubey. he has named the present petitioner. Same is not sufficient for prosecution of the present petitioner. In these circumstances, continuance of criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would be abuse of process of the Court and same would be groundless. *2- 4. On the other han learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that statements of forest guard Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Bharat Lal Dhrutlahre and Ashok Kumar are sufforent for criminal proceedings against the present petrtloner They have clearly deposed that the present petmoner was preeent on the date of corhmission of offence at 12 at night in oar and has threatened the forest officer“ 5. On perusal of statements of the aforesard wutnesses, It is drfflcutt to presume that pendency of cnmmal proceedings would be abuse of process of the Court or groundless 6. Consequently. the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma judge d