Ramakant Pandey (Petitioner In ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6448 Chatt

                               1

                                                              NAFR




       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                 Order Reserved on 30.9.2022

                 Order Delivered on 21.10.2022

                    Cr.M.P. No. 363 of 2021

      Anil Maurya, S/o Firturam Maurya, presently aged about 50
      years, R/o Kapil Nagar, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur
      (C.G.)                               Mo. No. 9827972971

                                                     ---- Petitioner

                             Versus

      1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the District Magistrate,
      Through: the Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur
      (C.G.)

      2. Uttam Pandey, S/o Bhagwat Prasad Pandey, aged about
      65 years, R/o Behind Sai Mandir, Shiv Vihar, Tifra, Bilaspur,
      Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

                                                 ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Kushwaha, Adv. appears on behalf of Mr. Anil Mourya, appearing in person For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. Adv. General For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Uttam Pandey, appearing in person

Cr.M.P. No. 364 of 2021

Rajnish Singh Baghel, S/o Shri Samarjit Singh (in the order impugned name is mentioned as Rajnish Singh, S/o Samarjit Sigh, presently aged about 43 years, R/o Plot No. 22, Shanti Nagar, Police Station - Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

Mob. No. 9424296550

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the District Magistrate, Through: the Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Uttam Pandey, S/o Bhagwat Prasad Pandey, aged about 65 years, R/o Behind Sai Mandir, Shiv Vihar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, appearing in person For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. Adv. General For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Uttam Pandey, appearing in person

Cr.M.P. No. 366 of 2021

Ramakant Pandey, S/o Gajadhar Prasad Pandey, aged about 48 years (presently), R/o Kapil Nagar, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

Mob. No. 9806139572

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the District Magistrate, Through: the Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Uttam Pandey, S/o Bhagwat Prasad Pandey, aged about 65 years, R/o Behind Sai Mandir, Shiv Vihar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Pandey, appearing in person For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. Adv. General For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Uttam Pandey, appearing in person

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Chandravanshi

Order [CAV]

1. Since all the three petitions have arisen out of a common

order dated 11.02.2021 passed by Second Additional Sessions

Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 13/2020 and order dated

17.12.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilha,

District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 166/2014, therefore,

they are being heard analogously and decided by this Common

Order.

2. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C.") have been preferred against

the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by Second Upper Sessions

Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 13/2020, affirming the

order dated 17.12.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Bilha in Criminal Case No. 166/2014, whereby, application filed by

respondent No. 2/complainant for summoning the Investigating

Officer alongwith Rojnamcha-Sanha No. 729, dated 17.09.2012 for

getting it exhibited during the course of his examination was

allowed.

3. The imperative facts required to be noticed for adjudication of

these petitions are as under:

3.1. The petitioners-in-person are facing trial in connection with

Criminal case No. 166/14 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajnish Singh &

others) before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha,

District Bilaspur, which is pending at the stage of evidence for

prosecution. Respondent No. 2 is complainant/victim in the

aforesaid criminal case. He filed an application on 14.08.2019

before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha, District Bilaspur for

summoning the Investigating Officer alongwith Rojnamcha Sanha

of 17.09.2012 of Police Station Chakarbhata. He (respondent

No. 2) had filed one other application on the same day, under

Section 301 read with Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. for allowing him to

represent the prosecution in aforesaid criminal case.

3.2 After considering aforesaid applications, vide order dated

21.8.2019, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha dismissed

both the applications, holding therein that it is not permissible

under the law. Criminal Revision No.175/2019 preferred

against that order was party allowed by Learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, by which, the respondent No.

2/complainant was permitted to assist Additional Public Prosecutor

during course of trial and he was also permitted for filing written

arguments after closing of evidence, but declined to allow prayer to

summon Investigating Officer along with Rojnamcha Sanha of the

date of incident for getting it exhibited during course of his

examination.

3.3. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the aforesaid order,

respondent No. 2/complainant preferred Cr.M.P. No. 2409 of 2019

(Uttam Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh & others) before this Court,

wherein following prayer was made by him, which reads thus:-

"P R A Y E R It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders (annexure P/1 & P/2), be pleased to allow the petitioner to prosecute Criminal Case No. 166/2014 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Bilha and further be pleased to direct the learned Trial Court to call the Investigating Officer of the case with Rojnamcha-sanha No. 729 dated 17.09.2012 for the purpose of adducing evidence, in the interest of justice."

3.4 Vide order dated 11.11.2019, aforesaid petition filed by

respondent No. 2/complainant herein was finally disposed of at

motion stage itself. Operative part of the order is extracted below :-

"11.11.2019

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would submit that he has filed the copy of Rojnamcha- Sanha before the trial Magistrate, but it has yet not been exhibited without the original.

2. Be that as it may, the petitioner is at liberty to file application for filing the Rojnamcha-Sanha before the trial Court and that application will be considered by the trial Court, in accordance with law.

3. With the aforesaid observations, the petition finally stands disposed off."

3.5 After passing of the aforesaid order dated 11.11.2019 passed

by this Court, respondent No. 2 / complainant filed an application

dated 14.11.2019 praying therein to summon the Investigating

Officer with Rojnamcha Sanha No. 729, dated 17.09.2012 of Police

Station, Chakarbhatha for getting it exhibited during course of his

examination, photo-copy of the said Rojnamcha Sanha was also

filed alongwith the said application, which he has obtained through

RTI. Pursuant to the liberty granted to respondent No.

2/complainant by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2019, Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bilha, Bilaspur vide order dated 17.12.2019

allowed an application filed by respondent No.2/complainant and

Criminal Revision No. 13/2020 filed against that order preferred by

the petitioners-in-person was rejected by learned Second Upper

Sessions Judge, Bilaspur vide order dated 11.02.2021. Against

which, instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been

preferred questioning the same.

4. The petitioners appearing in person would submit that earlier

application filed by respondent No. 2 on 14.8.2019 for appearance

of Investigating Officer before the trial Court along with Rojnamcha

Sanha was rejected by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha vide

order dated 21.8.2019, which was duly affirmed by the revisional

Court vide order dated 23.10.2019. Thereafter, respondent

No.2/complainant preferred Cr.M.P. No. 2409/2019 before this

Court wherein by order dated 11.11.2019, this petition was

disposed of finally at motion stage without noticing petitioners -in-

person herein by this Court granting liberty in favour of respondent

No. 2 [petitioner in that petition] to file application for filing

Rojnamcha Sanha before the trial Court and the trial Court was

directed to consider the said application in accordance with law. It

is further submitted by petitioners in person that during the course

of hearing of that petition, counsel for respondent No.2 herein

(petitioner in that petition) had made wrong submission that he has

filed copy of Rojnamcha Sanha before the trial Magistrate and in

pursuance of that submission, aforesaid liberty had been granted

to the respondent No. 2 herein (petitioner in that petition), whereas,

copy of said Rojnamcha Sanha had not been filed by him before

the trial Magistrate. Thus, respondent No. 2 has secured that order

by making false submission before this Court. It is next submitted

by petitioners appearing in person that vide order dated 11.11.2019

liberty to file application for filing Rojnamcha Sanha before the trial

Magistrate had been granted to respondent No. 2/complainant

(petitioner in that petition) but under the guise of that order,

respondent No. 2 filed an application on 14.11.2019 for directing

the Investigating Officer to bring original rojnamcha sanha dated

17.9.2012 for adducing in evidence, whereas, in the order dated

11.11.2019 such liberty was not granted to him by this Court,

despite that learned trial Magistrate has not only acted beyond the

direction given to it by this Court but both the courts below have

reviewed their earlier order, which is not permissible in law,

whereas order passed by both the courts below were not set aside

by this Court. It is next submitted that concerned Rojnamcha

Sanha sought for by respondent No. 2 is not a part of challan,

therefore, respondent No. 2/complainant by filing aforesaid

application cannot be permitted to usurp the power of

prosecution/police for compelling them to produce concerned

rojnamcha sanha, that too, after completion of

examination/evidence of respondent No. 2/complainant, which

amounts to make efforts to fill-up the lacuna brought by petitioners

in his (respondent No. 2) evidence, which is also not in accordance

with law. The reference was made by petitioners appearing in

person in cases of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa

and others 1, Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others 2,

Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar 3 and Mohammed Zakir v.

Shabana and Ors. 4 in support of their submissions.

5. Respondent No. 1/State & respondent No. 2/complainant

have filed their return. Respondent No. 2/complainant has also

filed written submissions in form of synopsis.

6. Respondent No. 2/complainant appearing in person while

referring his return would submit that, he and petitioners are

practicing advocates in the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur.

On 17.9.2012 petitioners assaulted upon him, abusing in filthy

language and also threatened to his life. On the same day, he

reported the matter at Police Station, Chakarbhatha, but his F.I.R.

was not lodged by the Police and only brief facts were reduced

1 AIR 2001 Supreme Court 43 2 2004 AIR SCW 5174 3 AIR 2017 SC (Supp) 252 4 AIR 2018 SC (Supp) 2483

in writing in rojnamcha sancha No. 729. He made complaint on

20.9.2012 to the Superintendent of Police, thereafter, in

consequence of the direction, police station Chakarbhatha

registered offence under crime No. 250/2012 under Sections 294,

506, 323/34 of the IPC against petitioners on 12.10.2012. It is

further submitted that without recording the fresh statement in

connection with FIR, the complaint / report made to Superintendent

of Police, Bilaspur was converted into FIR, which was not

containing all the facts of the incident.

6.1 It is further submitted by respondent No. 2/complainant

appearing in person that during course of his cross-examination,

he has stated that names of accused persons was mentioned in

the Rojnamcha Sanha of the date of occurrence reduced in writing

by the police, but that rojnamcha sanha was not filed by the police

with the charge-sheet , whereas, that rojnamcha sanha ought to

have been filed by the police alongwith the charge-sheet, therefore,

to bring that rojnamcha sanha on record and for getting it exhibited,

he had moved an application, which was earlier rejected but

subsequently in view of order dated 11.11.2019 passed by this

Court, his subsequent application was allowed by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bilha, Bilaspur vide order dated 17.12.2019,

which was duly upheld by the Revisional Court vide order dated

11.02.2021. It is next submitted that earlier order and subsequent

order are only interlocutory orders, which are neither judgment nor

final order and those orders also have not touched any of the

important rights of the petitioners, therefore, impugned order

passed by learned both the courts below cannot be considered as

review of their earlier orders.

6.2 It is next submitted by respondent No. 2 appearing in person

that he did not make any wrong submissions before this Court on

11.11.2019 about filing of copy of rojnamcha sanha before the trial

Court, because granting liberty by this Court to him to file

application for filing rojnamcha sanha before the trial Court itself

speak that such submission was not made and, therefore,

aforesaid liberty was granted to him by this Court. Respondent

No. 2 appearing in person while referring the judgments delivered

by the Supreme Court in the matter of Anant Prakash Sinha alias

Anant Sinha v. State of Haryana and another 5, Sheila

Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and another 6, Munshi Prasad and

others v. State of Bihar 7, & Rekha Murarka v. State of West

Bengal and another 8 would further submit that he himself is victim

in the aforesaid criminal case and his complaint was reduced in

Rojnamcha Sanha dated 17.9.2012 of Police Station,

Chakarbhatha, which was not filed by the police along with the

charge-sheet, despite being the same was important piece of

evidence. It is further submitted that in afore-cited cases, Hon'ble

Supeme Court has held that if there is any lacuna left by police /

prosecution, then bringing notice by victim/his counsel assisting to

5 (2016) 6 SCC 105 6 (2018) 7 SCC 581 7 (2002) 1 SCC 351 8 (2020) 2 SCC 474

the prosecution may be permitted to bring that fault/defect in the

notice of the Court, which could also be done by the Court, and

such right of victim/his counsel assisting to the prosecution has

been recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

decisions. It is further submitted that since, vide order dated

11.11.2019, liberty was granted in his favour to file application for

filing rojnamcha Sanha before the trial Court and the trial Court

was also directed to consider the said application in accordance

with law and after considering the application filed by him, the

same was allowed by learned courts below under the strength of

order dated 11.11.2019 passed by this Court, therefore, neither

impugned orders are review of earlier order nor suffers any

illegality or perversity, warranting interference by this Court in the

instant petitions, hence, the petitions filed by the petitioners-in-

person are liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the State while referring the return filed

by it would submit that order passed by the courts below are well

reasoned order based on proper findings and reasoning mentioned

therein and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same, therefore,

instant petitions are liable to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available / brought on record including impugned orders

with utmost circumspection.

9. The main issue in this case is an application dated

14.11.2019, which was subsequent application, filed by respondent

No. 2/complainant praying therein to summon Investigation Officer

along with Rojnamcha Sanha No. 729, dated 17.9.2012 of Police

Station Chakarbhata for getting it exhibited during course of his

examination. Earlier such application was dismissed by learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha, District Bilaspur vide order

dated 21.8.2019 holding therein that respondent No. 2/complainant

is not a competent person for making such prayer, though if

prosecution files such application, then it could be considered.

Criminal revision preferred against that order was also dismissed

by affirming the order of trial Magistrate.

10. It is stated by respondent No. 2/complainant appearing in

person that pursuant to his complaint, FIR was not lodged on

17.09.2012 at Police Station Chakarbhatha but on that day his

complaint was reduced in writing in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 729 and

his FIR was lodged on 12.10.2012 only after making complaint by

him to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on 20.9.2012. Thus,

that Rojnamcha Sanha is the first documentary evidence in respect

of Criminal Case No. 166/2014 pending against petitioners and,

therefore, that Rojnamcha sanha is very much important piece of

evidence for that case.

11. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.

empowers the Court to summon to produce documents or other

thing, which are necessary or desirable for the purpose of enquiry,

trial or other proceedings under the Cr.P.C. before such Court,

which are considered to be decided for just decision of the case.

Hence, considering the aforesaid provisions of law, learned courts

below have not committed any error to allow an application filed by

respondent No. 2/complainant for calling such first documentary

evidence i.e. rojnamcha sanha in respect of aforesaid criminal

case, rather this was the duty of the Investigating Officer to file that

Rojnamcha Sanha alongwith the charge-sheet.

12. In case of Sheila Sebastian (supra), their Lordships of the

Supreme Court has held in paragraph 29 as under :-

"29. ....................... It is the duty of the Investigating Officer, prosecution as well as the courts to ensure that full and material facts and evidence are brought on record, so that there is no scope for miscarriage of justice.

13. In case of Rekha Murarka (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed that victim/his counsel may draw attention of the

Court in respect of some mistake or lacuna left by Public

Prosecutor, so that, no inconsistency be left for just decision in the

case and held in paragraphs 11.3 & 11.5 as under :-

"11.3 ........ A victim-centric approach that allows for greater participation of the victim in the conduct of the trial can go a long way in plugging such gaps. To this extent, we agree with the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the introduction of the proviso to Section 24(8) acts as a safety valve, inasmuch as the victim's counsel can make up for any oversights or deficiencies in the

prosecution case. Further, to ensure that the right of appeal accorded to a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is not rendered meaningless due to the errors of the Public Prosecutor at the trial stage itself, we find that some significant role should be given to the victim's counsel while assisting the prosecution.................

11.5 However, even if there is a situation where the Public Prosecutor fails to highlight some issue of importance despite it having been suggested by the victim's counsel, the victim's counsel may still not be given the unbridled mantle of making oral arguments or examining witnesses. This is because in such cases, he still has a recourse by channelling his questions or arguments through the Judge first. For instance, if the victim's counsel finds that the Public Prosecutor has not examined a witness properly and not incorporated his suggestions either, he may bring certain questions to the notice of the Court. If the Judge finds merit in them, he may take action accordingly by invoking his powers under Section 311 of the CrPC or Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."

14. In the instant case, respondent No. 2/complainant, who is

practicing Advocate, himself is victim in Criminal Case No.

166/2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha

and since the concerned Rojnamcha Sanha dated 17.9.2012 has

not been filed alongwith the charge-sheet, therefore, considering

the importance of that document, he had moved an application for

bringing it on record and got exhibited also, hence, in view of the

provisions contained in Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., the application

ought to had been allowed but that was rejected earlier only on the

technical ground stating that he is not a competent person for

making such prayer, and if prosecution would file such application,

then it can be considered, which was not in accordance with law.

But subsequently, that prayer made by respondent No.

2/complainant was allowed by the trial Cout vide order dated

17.12.2019 and upheld by Revisional Court vide impunged order

11.02.2021. Since, respondent No. 2 is victim/complainant himself,

therefore, looking to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the afore-cited cases and provisions contained in Section

91 of the Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that only by filing aforesaid

application, respondent No. 2/complainant has usurped the power

of prosecution by compelling the police to produce Rojnamcha-

Sanha and the submissions made by petitioners appearing in

person in this regard is not found to be correct. Likewise, since

examination of Investigating Officer has not been conducted yet, as

stated by respondent No. 2 in his submission, therefore, objection

raised by petitioners with regard to delay in filing such application is

also not sustainable.

15. Main contention of the petitioners appearing -in-person in

these cases are that since vide earlier order same application was

rejected by both the courts below and later on the same application

was allowed, therefore, allowing subsequent application for the

same relief is amount to review of earlier orders passed by both the

courts below, which is not permissible in law. It has further been

contended that vide order dated 11.11.2019 passed by this Court,

earlier order passed by both the courts below were not set aside

and liberty was granted to respondent No. 2/complainant (petitioner

in that petition) only to file application for filing the Rojnamcha

Sanha before the trial Court, that too, without entering into the

merits of the case, except that no other liberty was granted in his

favour. Thus, learned both the Courts below have committed

illegality in exceeding the liberty granted by this Court by allowing

the aforesaid application filed by respondent No. 2/complainant,

which amounts to review of earlier order passed by both the courts

below.

16. This Court is not impressed from the submissions made by

petitioners appearing - in - person because in this regard prayer

made by respondent No. 2/complainant in the earlier Cr.M.P. No.

2409 of 2019 filed by him, are required to be looked into, which has

been noted in preceding paragraph No. 3.3 of this order.

17. Prayer made by respondent No. 2/complainant in that Cr.M.P.

No. 2409/2019 clearly shows that relief was sought for by him, to

direct the learned trial Court to call Investigating Officer of the case

along with Rojnamcha Sanha No. 729, dated 17.9.2012 to bring

the original for adducing in evidence. On perusal of the petition i.e.

Cr.M.P. No. 2409 of 2019 (Annexure R-2/1), it appears that

respondent No. 2/complainant has filed copy of that Rojnamcha

Sanha alongwith aforesaid petition. Vide order dated 11.11.2019

while granting liberty to the petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein) to

file application for filing Rojnamcha Sanha before the trial Court,

itself shows that concerned Rojnamcha Sanha had not been filed

before the trial Court, therefore, such liberty was granted to him

and trial Court was directed to consider the said application in

accordance with law and with these observations, petition was

disposed of finally. If respondent No. 2/complainant would not

have been permitted for making prayer to call the Investigating

Officer alongwith concerned Rojnamcha Sanha, then granting him

liberty to file application for filing Rojnamcha Sanha before the trial

Court would have become worthless.

18. It is also pertinent to mention here that granting aforesaid

liberty in favour of respondent No. 2/complainant in that petition

also implied to permit him to make further prayer in respect of

aforesaid Rojnamcha Sanha and, therefore, order to set aside the

order dated 21.8.2019 and 23.10.2019, passed by Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bilha and Upper Sessions Judge, Bilaspur,

respectively was implied in order dated 11.11.2019 and under the

strength of that order passed by this Court, learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bilha has considered and allowed the

application, which has duly been upheld by the Revisional Court,

therefore, it cannot be said that while passing the impugned orders,

both the courts below have reviewed their earlier order.

19. In the case of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa

and others (supra), earlier, High Court has disposed of the

petition directing the SSP, to look into the allegations of the

petitioner and if he comes to the conclusion that some cognizable

offence has been committed by respondents 7 or 8 or anybody

else, he shall order for the registration of the case. If the allegations

of the petitioner are found to be false, the petitioner shall be

prosecuted u/s 182 IPC. Later on, that order passed by the High

Court was recalled in subsequent petition filed by the same

petitioner. In that view of the matter when subsequent order was

challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court, then it was observed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court that "There is no provision in the Code of

Criminal Procedure authorising the High Court to review its

judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or

original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power cannot be exercised

with the aid or under the cloak of Section 482 of the Code."

20. In the case of Adalat Prasad (supra), vide subsequent order

Magistrate has recalled his earlier order of registration of complaint

case wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Code of

Criminal Procedure does not contemplate the review of order

passed earlier by the Magistrate, but in the instant case

subsequent order has been passed by the Magistrate in view of the

liberty granted by this Court to respondent No. 2/complainant and

the direction given by this Court to learned trial Court to consider

the application filed by respondent No. 2/complainant (petitioner in

Cr.M.P. No. 2409/2019) in accordance with law. Therefore, facts of

the aforesaid case law and other case law cited by the petitioners

appearing in person are not similar to the facts of the instant case.

Hence, they do not get any support from afore-cited case laws in

the instant case.

21. It is also pertinent to mention here that considering the liberty

granted by this Court in paragraph 2 of the order dated 11.11.2019

and the pleadings made by respondent No. 2/complainant in

Cr.M.P No. 2409/2019, this Court is not concurred with the

submissions made by petitioners appearing in person that pursuant

to the wrong submissions made by respondent No. 2/complainant

in that petition, aforesaid liberty was granted to him.

22. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, all

the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., being devoid of

substance, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order as

to costs.

Sd/-

(N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge

D/-