H1§ QQQEI OF QHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PQR (C.G.! Cr. MP. No. 329 of 2008 W same Bench : Hea’me Mr. 7.9. sharma, J. Applicant PETITIONER Chandra Narendra Chandra Das, aged Das, about S/o iate 42 Narayan years, Caste Kayastha. Occupation Labour, R/o. Vinage Digma. Police Siation and Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Versus “MM PETITIOMUNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL V "Present : PROCEDURE, 1973 Shri Shrawan Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (Passed on 31 E1 July, 2008) This petition is directed against the order dated 08.04.2008 passed by sessions Judge. Raigarh. in Criminal Revision No. 99/2006 aftirming the order dated 285.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Classk Dharamjaigarh, ‘in M.J.C. No. 60/2005 whereby the learned Judicial o Magistrate First Class has rejected the appiication of the petitioner in respect (i of maintainabimy of application under Section 127 of Code of Criminat Procedure. 2. The order .is challenged on the ground that the Courts below has committed grave illegality by rejecting the application of the applicant. p RESPONDENTS 1. Smt.P}atima NONuAPPLlCANTS Das.W/o.Narendra Chandra Das, aged about 38 yrs, Ku. Anita Das. Dlo. Narendra Chandra Das, aged about 17 yrs, Ku. Suniia Das. Dio.‘Narendra Chandra Das, aged abcut 16 yrs, ‘ yrs, Ali By Caste .Kayastha R/o. Dharamjaigarh Colony. P.S. and Tahs'i! Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh Raigarh (C.G.) (Respondents No. 2 & 3 are through Natural Guardian mother Respcndent 3. I have heard learned counsei for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 4. it is argued an behalf of the petitioner that maintenance was awarded against the applicant but after ordering of the maintenance both the parties were entered into compromise in the recovery proceedings of the maintenance and as a resuit of which order of maintenance came to an end. it is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for order of maintenance was not in existence, therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced and the trial Court has wrongly rejected the application. 5. Copy of the order impugned is perused. 6. Order passed on the compromise appiication perused. According to objection for compromise, parties entered into an agreement relating to recovery of maintenance amount and on the basis of agreement, recovery proceedings were dropped. According to agreement. compromise relating to the recovery proceedings has come up. therefore the order of recovery of maintenance may be set aside. 7. After considering the entire material availabie on record specialiy HVW para-9 of the if, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Bilaspur has rightly rejected the application under Section 127 of the Cr.p.C.. The teamed Judicial Magistrate gjmt Class. Bilaspur has not committed any illegality or irregularity in taking cognizancegin the complaint against the petitioner. p. 8. Consequently, the petition being deyoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. M_.~w~—”*" T. P. Shari“? z Jude? 5di- itmt