1 HSGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR Cnminai IVS.P. No. 231/2008 Petitioners Respondents 1. Trilokchand alias Dadu. S/o Late Shri Ganpat La! Jaiswal, aged about 48 years, R/o Sakti, Ward No. 9, PO Sakti, PS & Tahsil, Sakti, District: JanjgiF-Champa (CG) 2. Shambhoo Dayal S/o Satish Kumar JaiswaE; aged about 30 years R/o SaklJ, Ward No. 9, PO Sakti, PS & Tahsil, Sakti, District: Janjgir-Chanrspa (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh tbrough the Secrstary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Station House Officer, PS & Tahsi! Katghora, District-Korba (CG) 3. Ramshankar Baghel, S/o Shri Sudhdant Ram Baghel, aged about 45 years; R/o Katghora, PS & Tahsii Katghora, DJstrict- Korba (CG) 4. Chandan, S/o Shri Sudhdant Ram Baghel; aged about 28 years; President, Press Reporters' Association, Katghora, R/o Katghora, PS & Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba (CG). PETITJON UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMJNAL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Present: Shri Ashiah Surana, counsei for the petitioners. Shri Sartjeev K. Agrawa!, Pane! lawyer for frse rsspondent No. 1 and 2. Oral Order (Passed on 27th June, 2008) This petition is directed againstthe order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora in Crimtnal Case No. 1384/07 whereby the iearned triai court has registered the criminal case against the petitioners for the offence punishabie under section 410/34 of the IPC. 2. Regjstratlon and taking of cognizance are chaljenged on the ground that there Is no prima facie material available on record for takJng cognizance and regjstratlon of criminai case against the petitioners as the dispute involved is purely of civsl nature. ^- 6' B/- 3, i have heard Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sanjeev Ku. Agrawal, learned Panel lawyer for the respondent No.1 and 2 and perused the documente appended thereto. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is a civil transaction and no criminal offence has been committed by the petitioners and therefore, contlnuance of the proceedings in the trial court would not serve any useful purpose and would be an abuse the process ofthe court. 5. Perusai of the charge sheet shows that the offence under section 420/34 has been registered against the petitioners. The trial court has not considered the case on the point of framing of charge. Therefore, the parties are required to agitate their matter before the trial court for framing of charge. 6- i do not find any substance in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is iiabie to be dismlssed and it is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. 7. It is however, open to the parties to agitate their matter before the triai court for framing of charges. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge