-;;^^^.^ ^ ""-"'\ s "" ^ s ^/ XI-HC—78P "^_\®9 WHCtT^Rr^ ^^ r^l^l<yl<Ll, ^Ttl<-i4l<o, f^TRTy ^E......^...^-.^..-...1^ 200 3^?T XI^R'.( ^f^^?) 3TT^[ "^7 f^ri<^ ^«TTW^T^F^N> I&FPLiCANT {MON.APPUCANTS 1. Abdul Aw^l, S/o. Abdiil Rakeeb, aged about 25 Rak^eb, S/o. Abdul Latit, ^ed about 50 Amu4' Rahniaa, W/o, Abdul Rakeeb &B: HON^BLB SHRI DHIRENDRA fllISHRA.J The State Magistrate, j)f Chhattisgarh, tiirough -District Bastar Vefrsiis 2. 3. vears Abdul years Smt, Amtut AU R/o Jodhpur, F| AooiicatSon U/s 482 ofthel 124.02.2009 Shri D.K. Gwah'e, Govt. Advo^ate for fhe State/appMcant, Heard on adiiiission, The State has prcfeiTed thi^ pr.P,C; for quashiag of tiie orderj |3assed by tlie Judicial M^istratej j^nnexm-e A-2 dated 25.10.2008 ]3y fhe leanied 1st Additional the Courts below have refused to ^heet filed by Police Station ~ ^round that no part of cause of ^he tenitorial jurisdiction of tlie ^Jagdalpur. '^?1Fifepf^'^TTR^ff ^ k^\ <F^^$i< ^'^tfiTH SiT^T Jagdaiaba Colony, Pratapnagar, .S. -Pratapnagar, Rajasthan Code of Crimiaal Procedure petition under Section 482 of the lofAnnexiire A-l dated 14.9.2006, 18t Class, Jagdalpur and oider of iD. Crmunal Revision No,99/06 Judge, Jagdalpur, whereby bofh cognizaiice on fhe basis of charge B<|dhghat, Distdct- Jagdalpur on the for the said offence arose within co4cemed Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, p^ssed Sessihns tsjke B<|dhghat, aclion -'Xl-HC—78 »»-t.l--"'^-:^ sy T^T ^wrn^, ^^\ww, f®icni^^< ^pmi %»*ia<s»» ^M^T'M'^ •^T^T^T^IT^ -V "^ 200 -m^T T(^^ (^i^<^) -z^ Leamed counsel fo iiapugned orclers have beei] Information Report, which persuaded by tlie coiiipla|nant aad her pareuts while statioiied at Jagdalpur not to harass fhe Heard leamed counse Bofh the Courts belo ch.arge sheet, have ardved cause of action arose wit Magistrate 1st Class, Ja^ iaterference is called for u|i exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of fhe Code of CrimiaaJ the Courts below, Iii the result, fhe peti dismissed and is accordiag] ^TZ?feN^T ^n^f ^ fe^t if^i^K ^^tftiH3:n^r fhe applicaat/State subniits fhat the passed by ignoring the contents ofthe First learly reveals that tlie accused persons were coniplaiiiaiit for dowxy. 1 for tlie State. w, after carefully examming fhe contents of ^t concurreut fiadmg of fact that no part of [hin fhe territorial jurisdiction of Judicial dalpur. In that view of fhe matter, no Procedure on fhe concuiTent fmding ofboth don being devoid of substaiice deserves to be y dismissed at the admission stage itself Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge