Kl: li ^^ fe. t- J> -AU !. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA^»UR PBTITONERS CR.M.P. No. 633 OF 2009 1. Brijkishore Agrawal, a%ed about 21 years, Son ofRaaChhod Lal Agrawal, 2. Kishore Agrawal, aged about at prcsent aged about 24 years years, Son of Raachhod Lal Agrawal, 3. Raj Kishore Agrawal, aysd about 26 years, Son ofRanchhod Lal Agrawal, 4. Raachhod Lal Agrawal, aged about 73 years, Son of Baniri Vishal Agrawal, (Deadt. AU R/o Turi Hatari, F>uram BaaQ, Raipur, Tabsil aad District Raipur (C.G.). .VBRSU8 RE8PONDEMT Naadkishore Agrawal, aged about 45 ycars, Sou of Late Bhrigunaad Lal Agrawal, R/o ; Sonar Para Gali, Near Purani Pollce Quarter, ui&ont Baaarsi TUiappa WaK, Turi Hatari, Purani Basti, Raipur, P.S. Purani Basti, Tahsfl aad District Raipur (C.G.), PBTITION UNDBR SBCTIOW 482 OP THE CODK < CmMIAL PROCBDURE. 1973. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedoa 30/11/3009) This is a petition uader Section 482 of fhe Code of Crimiaal Ptxaccdiuc, 1973 (ia short the code) agamst fhe order datcd 21/7/09 passed by fhe Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipiu- ia crixninal complaint case No. 1197/2006 whereby Court below has dismissed the case for caBing docuiaents fi?oin PoUce Station on fhe ground that docuiacnts in question is ah-eady in record and poUce has submitted the report aloag witfa. 6 papers (pages) ofthe complaint aud 4 copy offhe slatemente. !. Learued couasel for the petitioners veheniently argued that alfhough Court below has xaeutioned the facts that poUce has submitted fhc copy z- of ftie coiaplaint and 4 copies of fhe statement but thesc documents not find place with record offhe Court below. 3. Copy of ffae order impugned, copy of the application filed on behalf of the petitioners are perused. 4. Copy of the oider impugned clearty reveals that after hearing the parties Court has perused the report submitted on behalf of fhe petitioners and found the or^mal appUcation ie. complaint aad 4 copies of the stateinents wliich have been submitted by the poUce along with its report dated 9/5/01 and the docuinents for which petitioners has filed the appUcation for its requisition is on record, Tbe order impugned is based on the perusal of fhe record by Court concerued aad at this stage it caanot be said that court below has recorded incorrect facts in a judicial proceeding, I do not find force in the petition. Consequently, tbis petition is disinissed iu Umiae wifh cost of Rs, 2.000/- upon the pctitioneis, Petitioners shall pay fhe costs to the respondent within 30 days froiu today before further progress ofthe case. Ceitified copy as per rules. Sd'- T.P. Sharma Judge •^