^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Miscellaneous Petition ||4 /2009 (S.B.) APPLICANT o Sanjay Saxena, S/o Late G.B. Saxena, Aged about 39 years, -1' (Proprietor) Shri Kailaji Traders, Government Rest House, Kothi Bazaar, Hoshangabad (M.P.) •^:.. ' VERSUS RESPONDENT Ambuja Cement, EasternLtd. Rawan, Through: Anup Jaiswal, Assistant Officer, (Legal), Ambuj'a Cement Eastern Ltd. Rawan, Tahsil - Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur(C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 48fOF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ss K J-L^_^L^. i^lP::€:^^^^l::^Pil!;;^t'^ B^^^-^-si^-M.S' HI6H COURT OF CHHATHSeARH AT BILASPUR Sir^le Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Jysticc Prstinker DiwaRer CrM.P.No. H6of_2009 APPUC-ANT Sanjoy Saxena RESPONDENT Versvs Ambuja Cement, Eastern Ltd< Shri Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the applicant, Shri Ashish ShrlvastavQ counsei for the respondent- PETTTION UN&ER SECTCON ^2 OF THE COE>6 OF OiSlMINAt PROCE&UR! 0_RJD_ER (08.07.2010) « Present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying the followsng relief :- n It is therefore prayed ifiat this Hon'bte court may kindly be aiiowd this petitjon and quash the proceedings of compbint case in Crimina! Case Np.1041/2000 (Present case no.667/2002) along with the order dated 27.7.2000 passed by AdditionaS Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Baloda Bazaar in order to secure the ends of justice, 2. Counse! for the appiicont submits that the order doted 27<7.2000 by which the aise was registered by the Court bebw is bad in the eye of bw. AccordmQ to him, the ingredients of Sections 406 & 420 of the Indion Penal Code are not attracted and, therefore, 1+ie court below ought not to have registered the case for these two offences. It has also been argued that the Court of Baioda Bazar has not territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case< Lastly it has been argued that though the complaint was registered on 27.7.2000 but tiil then not a single witness of -Hie compfainant has been examined* 3o The arguments adyanced by the counsel for 1+ie appiicant are vehemently opposed by counsei for the respondent and it hos been araued that the order impugned was passed on 27,7.2000 whereas ^. A,' the present petition has been filed in the year 2009 and/ therefore, the applicant connot challen9e the tenabilit/ of the complaint at this betated stage. He submits that the entire transaction took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Baloda Bazar, Dsstrict ftaipur and, therefore the court bebw WQS justified in registerin9 the complaint, In respect of not adducing the evidence, st has been aygued that the complainant wili moke all tfiie efforts to compbte its evidence and if the applicant ws'll co-operate, entire eysdence on behalf of the compteinant would be concludecl wsthln six months. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties ond perused the material avQibbJe on record. 5. Admittedly the complaint was registered on 27.7.2000 and the present petition has been fiied on 27.2.2009. In view of this, this Court is refraining itself to consider the mersts of the case. If the q^plicant was so aggrieved, he ought to have approached before the Court at the earliest. 6. So far os delay in recording the evidence is concerned, present petition is disposed of with a direction to tiie trjol Ma91strate to decide the complaint case as eoriy as possible preferably within 8 months from the next date of hearing of the case. It is expected from the appljcant ond respondent to cooperate in the Court below. 7. It would be the duty of the oppiicant ond the re^pondent to opprise the court below about possing of this order. ftegistry is also directed to send the copy of this order to ^ie concerned court. 8- With the above obseryQtions, petitjon stonds dlsposedl of. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge