EG}! COHRTV OLE Ci'll-MTI’ISGARH, BILASPU riminal Misc. PatitiqnNnJzQ at 20 APPLICANT: Bhullu @ Ram Niwas, S/o Late Atibal Sahu, aged about 32 years, R/o ViHage, Pampapur, P.S. & Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O. P.s. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2. Lakhpatiya Sahu, W/o Radhe Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Pampapur, P.S. & Tah. Surajpur, Disttn gurguja (C.G.) {Appiication under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal, Procedure, 1973} NON-APPLICANT: Present: Mr. Itu Rani Mukherjee, counsei for the apalicant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-appllcant No.2. Single Bench: Han’ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J ORAL JUDGMENT (7-9-2009) 1. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.c. is for quashment of the order dated 14-2—2008 passed by the 1" Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Criminai Revislon No.128/2006, affirming the order takinglcognizance dated 9-3-2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur in Criminal Complaint, Case No.426/2006, whereby learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after making necessary enquiry in the complaint under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., took cognizance against the applicant herein of the offence punishable under Section 395 of the LP.C. Order is challenged on the ground that without any prima facle material theCourt below has taken cognizance against the applicant and the same has beenaffirmed by the Additional sessionsJudge in g: criminal revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused. copy of the order impugned, copy of the order of the trial Court and copies of statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200-202 of the aw Cr.P.C. l I N # C 0$ . s . Learned counsel for the applicant argued that statements of th witnesses recorded) under Sections 200-202 of the Cr.P.C. do not reveal the commission of offence underSection 395 of the'LP.C. by the applicant and the Court below has committed. material irregularity in taking cognizance against the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the application and submitted-that the Court below has rightly taken cognizance against the applicant. 6. Statements of the witnesses & the complainant recorded under Sections 200—202 of the Cr.P.C. reveal that the applicant along with four other persons by using criminal force snatched Mangal Sutra from the neck of the complainant Le. non—applicant No.2 herein. After appreciating theevidence, the trial Court has taken cognizance. against the, applicantof the offence punishable under Section 395 of the I.P.C. The order taking cognizance does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so also theorder of the revisionai Couit. I do not find any scope for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The application is therefore, liable to be dismissed and . it is hereby dismissed. Sdl— T.P. SHARMA Judge e