IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR:H.:AT BILASPUR fC.G.) CR.M.P.NO. i_3JO_ QE2Q11 PETITIONER : VS. t--^—--fJ-f^"^' Ptesented by Shri ^.^.<d ."<-' .^4»?-~^ RESPONDENTS •^s'^' ^ Sitaram, aged about 35 years, S/o Surajbali, R/o Village Narayaj, Police Station Mouhdha, District Hamirpur (Uttar Pradesh) VERSUS ""' Rafiq Khan, aged about 31 years, S/o Ramjan Khan, R/o Bramhpuri, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) - Nandkishpre, S/o Surajbali, aged about 35 years, Manoj, S/o Surajbali, aged about 25 years, Santosh, S/o Surajbali, aged about 22 years, Avdhesh, S/o Surajbali, aged about 19 years, Jagdish, S/o Ramnath, aged about 40 years, Respondent No. 2 to 6 are R/o Village Rarayach, Police Station Moudha, District Hamirpur (U.P.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the District Collector, Durg, Disjrict Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL •-^ PROCEDURE.1973 HIGM COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ,^L . • SingLe BenchLHon'ble Shri IWanjndra WIohan Shrivastava, J. Cr.M.P.No.636/2011 Petitioner Respondents Sitaram Versus Rafiq Khan and others Petitipn ynder Section 482ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure Present:- Shri P. P. Sahu,counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29-09-2011) Heard on admission. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Complaint Case No.449 of 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are residents of Village Narayach, Police Station Moudha, Tahsil Moudha, District l-1amirpur(u. P.). It is argued that wife of co-accused Nand Kishore filed a comptaint case before the District Magistrate, Hamirpur, with regard to illegality committed by one Sharif Khan and his wife Guddo in the matter of fraudulent execution of sale deed in favour of Guddo by Nand Kishore in the year 2004. Sharif Khan, who is an employee in the Police Department, State of U.P., is having relationship at Raipur, to get advantage, got the police complaint registered throughRafiq Khan against Nand Kishore and other accused persons including the petitioner in order to settle scores with Nand Kishore. It is further submitted that the complaint is vague and there is no specific overt act alleged to be committed bythe petitioner, so as to involve himin the alleged offence. Even then, the learned Magistrate registered offence under Section 294, 323/34 of the ..:~!~das!fe^1' ,-?>" ..^ '-•• ^^ ''&sS^^^'! i ^/ ^-^Sd^ --.> IPC against the petitioner and other accused persons. Learned pounsel for the 1-^, •? petitioner contended that in the complaint and the preliminary statements of the complainant's witnesses, there is no mention of the time, number of the vehicle or the documents with regard to ownership of the vehicle. Therefore, without any detail with regard to make & number of taxi as well as ownership documents, prima facie, no case for registering offences against the petitioner ismade out. He also submits that the witnesses in support of the complainant/respondent, resident of Raipur, have not stated in their statements, as to how they reached the place of incident alleged to have taken place at Sector-6, Bhilai, nor have said that what would be the reason to remain present at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is never posted at Raipur or Bhilai during the alleged period and the complaint is highly frivolous, and therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings by registering cases against the petitioner, is abuse of the process ofjaw, warranting interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court. 4. A perusal of the complaint filed by Rafiq Khan and the preliminary statements of Rafiq Khan, Mohd. Yusuf, Zahir Ahmed, conjointly reveal that the complainant has alleged that the petitioner and other accused persons had picked up taxi oi the complainant and had gone to Bhilai from Raipur and when the complainant reached Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Near Mangal Bhawan, behind the Petrol Pump, the vehicle was stopped and all the accused persons including the petitioner came out of the vehicle. When the complainant asked for the rent of taxi of Rs.800/-, the accused persons were enraged and thereafter, they started hurling abuses and then the comptainant was assaulted, and afterthat, his watch and Rs.600/- kept by him, were looted. At the place of occurrence, Zahir Ahmed and Mohd. Yusuf, who were present in the vehicle, rescued the complainant. Even thereafter, the petitioner and other accused persons did not return the money and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. In the .--'-'-.. ''8 iS v-: '^.^^' ^ ^ preliminary statements of Rafiq Khan, it has been stated that vyhen he asked for payment of taxi charges, he was abused and beaten. 5. The order passed by the Revisional Court earlier shows that upon filing of complaint, the Magistrate sought report of the police and after taking into consideration the report, contents of the complaint and the preliminary statements, registered offences under Section 294, 323 against the petitioner. The contents of the complaint supported by the preliminary statements, prima facie make out a case of commission of offence under Section 294, 323 of the IPC against the petitioner as well, because the allegations is that all the accused persons including the petitioner hurled abuses and the complainant was beaten. At this stage, what is required to be seen, is that whether there is a sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether full proof case for conviction is made out or not. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner thatin the absence of specific details with regard to number, make and ownership documents of taxi, presence of the petitioner and other accused persons being doubtful and the witnesses presence also being doubtful, cannot be accepted at this stage. Itwould bea matter of consideration during the course of trial, when the petitioner would be at liberty to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses to ^ ". impeach their credibility during the course of trial and also would be at liberty to lead his witnesses. 6. In the result, 1 do not find any merit in this petition, warranting interference at this stage in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petition is therefore dismissed. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane