^-.-•^r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR PETITIONER Cr. M.P. No. 51/2008 Navin Chandra Tiwari, S/o Nand Kishore Tiwari, aged about 35 years, R/o Ramanujganj, P.S. Ramanujganj, District Sarguja (C.G.). (ACCUSED) VERSUS RESPONDENT The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.). (PROSECUTION). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Singh, P.L. for the State/respondent. QRAL- ORDER (Passedon 26/04/2010) By this petition, petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 10/1/2008 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Ramanujganj, District Sarguja in criminal revision No. 58/07 affirming the order dated 16/4/2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj in criminal case No. 478/02 under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). Order is challenged on the ground that without any prima facie material sufficient for framing charge, explaining the particulars of the offence learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has explained the particulars of the offence of under Sections 186 8s 353 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby comraitted an illegality. Order was challenged before the revisional Court and 2-- revisional Court while affirming the order has committed an illegality. 3. Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Singh, P.L. for the State/respondent are heard. 4. Order impugned, copy of the charge sheet and copy of the order of trial Court filed on behalf of the petitioner perused. 5. As per copy of the charge-sheet complainant who was public servant has lodged the report that while he was discharging his official duty petitioner came and quarreled with him relating to demand of cerdfied copy of the document and thereby disturbed a public tranquility. He has lodged the report after investigation of the offence charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj at the time of explaining the particulars of the offence petitioner has objected that in absence of any compliant made by complainant to the Court, Court is not competent to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. While dismissing the objection of the petitioner, trial Court has exainined particulars of the offence punishable under Sections 186 8s 353 ofthe Indian Penal Code. Order was challenged before the revisional Court and revisional Court has affirmed the order vide order impugned. 6. In the present case complainant i.e. public servant has not filed any complaint as required under Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Copy of the First Information Report and statement of the witnesses reveal that petitioner has quarreled and disturbed the public tranquility "3HT???ra> ~^vt ^ Rciic; ^R ?prer oTsr^ ^^ vW \ Rri-H-tl 4^ 'lull'ld ^Tif ^TIA (R? ^ •s- THiRd 'gsn \ 'iHm ^t "yi'yid'y MR-H'; ^" ?Trf?r •FTT ^ 11" At the time of framing charge or explain the particulars of the offence Court is not required to analysis the evidence no meticulous scrutiny of the offence is required. Court is required to see whether allegation made in the complaint if adn-iitted in its face value then saine would be sufficient for conviction of the accused, if the allegation made in complaint is considered in the light of aforesaid legal preposition then if the contents of charge sheet is admitted by the petitioner in its face value then even conviction under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code would not be possible. Allegation of use of criminal force in true-detour the public servant from discharge of his official duty definitely allegation made in the charge sheet is sufficient for explaining the particulars of the offence or even proved is sufficient for conviction of the petitioner under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code but in these circumstances complainant was under obligation to make complai-nt to the Magistrate in accordance with provisions of Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of the Code. Therefore, in absence of any complaint or allegation relating to the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code criminal proceeding pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj would only be abused of the process of the Court. Consequently, this pedtion is allowed and criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj in criminal case No. 478/02 is hereby quashed. ^ Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge