Chattisgarh High Court
Shvetank Chandel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:21413
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1576 of 2025
1 - Shvetank Chandel S/o Ram Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Q.No.-5 D,
Street No. 82, Sector-6, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)
2 - Ram Singh Chandel S/o Late Puram Chandel Aged About 55 Years R/o
Q.No.- 5 D, Street No. 82, Sector-6, District- Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Police Station Bhilai Nagar,
District- Durg (C.G.)
2 - Farhan Khan S/o Wahid Ahamad Khan Aged About 24 Years, R/o- 11/b,
Ward No. 40, Sector 02, Bhilai Nagar, Bhilai Bhatti, Durg District- Durg
(C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate
General
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
08/05/2025
1. The petitioners have filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
Digitally
signed by
under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
VEDPRAKASH
VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.05.14
10:52:50
+0530
(in short "BNSS") against the order dated 06-12-2024 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No. 286/2024,
whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioners has been
dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the accused
persons in Criminal Case No. RCC/10231/2023, pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, which arises out of
Crime No. 420/2023, registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar,
District Durg (C.G.), for the offence under Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. on
the complaint made by the complainant Farhan Khan. It is alleged in
the F.I.R. that the present petitioners/accused persons have cheated
him on the pretext of providing job to him in the Bhilai Steel Plant and
obtained Rs. 10 Lakhs from him. It is alleged in the complaint that the
complainant, Farhan Khan was running a tea stall and having a
Bakery at Junwani Road, the petitioners/accused persons allured him
to provide job to him in the Bhilai Steel Plant and obtained Rs.
95,000/- on 25-08-2022, Rs. 50,000/- on 26-08-2022, Rs. 85,000/- on
30-08-2022, Rs. 10,000/- on 18-09-2022, Rs. 90,000/- on 20-09-
2022, Rs. 95,000/- on 21-09-2022, Rs. 80,000/- on 22-09-2022, Rs.
20,000/- on 01-10-2022, Rs. 7,000/- on 14-10-2022 and Rs. 15,000/-
on 22-10-2022, which were paid to him through Phone-pay electronic
payment transfer system. On 22-09-2022, he had transferred Rs.
2.20 Lakhs into the bank account of the petitioner, Shwetank
Chandel, from his bank account. The amount has been transferred in
the bank account of Shwetank Chandel on the instructions of the
petitioner Ram Singh Chandel. On 01-10-2022, Rs. 1.10 Lakhs have
also been given to them in cash in their house, but they have failed to
provide job to him, and when he demanded his money back, they
refused to repay the amount and threw him out of his house by
raising quarrel with him. It is also alleged that the accused persons
are pressurizing him to take back his complaint, or else he will face
dire consequences. On the complaint of the complainant Farhan
Khan, the FIR has been registered and after due investigation,
charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners/accused persons.
3. On 14-08-2024, the arguments before charge were heard, and after
hearing the parties, the learned trial court passed the order and
ordered that there is sufficient evidence available in the charge sheet
to proceed with the trial of the case and directed the accused
persons to remain present for framing of the charge.
4. The order dated 14-08-2024 was challenged by the petitioners/
accused persons before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, by filing
the Criminal Revision No. 286/2024. After hearing the parties, the
criminal revision filed by the petitioners/accused persons has also
been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, vide order
dated 06-12-2024, which is under challenge in the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused persons would submit
that the petitioner No. 1 is an engineering graduate having B.E.
degree, he came into contact with the complainant through his tea
stall, and both of them started the stock trading business. D-mat
account is also opened in the name of the complainant, and he
himself has started investing in stock trading. The complainant
himself made the transaction in stock trading, and for the same, the
complainant has transferred the amount to the bank account of the
petitioners. The complainant has also received the profit in his bank
account from the stock trading, which itself reflected in the bank
account statement. She would also submit that there was frequent
WhatsApp chatting between the complainant and the petitioner No.
1/accused with respect to their stock trading business, which is
clearly shown in the extract of WhatsApp chatting between them. It is
only to rope in the false case of cheating, the allegation is levelled
that the complainant is being cheated by the accused persons on the
pretext of providing job in the Bhilai Steel Plant. It is also submitted
by her that the father of the complainant is also an employee at Bhilai
Steel Plant on the same post as the petitioner No. 2/accused is, and
he was very well aware of the affairs of the Bhilai Steel Plant. There
is no question of their deception or alluring the complainant to deliver
the money in lieu of providing job. It is a pure and simple business
transaction and not cheating. Therefore, no material prima facie
appears in the charge sheet to proceed with the trial of the case and
the petitioners/accused persons are entitled to discharge from the
offence.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/state would submit
that from the FIR itself, the prima facie ingredients are there to
proceed with the trial of the case and to frame charge against the
accused persons. Whether or not the allegations are true or false is
the subject matter of the trial and evidence. It is not the case that
there is no transaction between the complainant and the accused
persons. Further, the WhatsApp chats and bank account details have
not been produced by the accused persons before the police
authority during the investigation, and it is the defence of the accused
persons that the transaction is with respect to the stock trading
business. Even, for the sake of argument, if it is considered a stock
trading transaction, the allegation has to be established or rebutted
during the trial and recording of evidence of the parties. The
documents of WhatsApp and bank account details annexed with the
petition are not part of the charge sheet, and at this stage, it cannot
be taken into consideration while framing of charge. There are
statements of the witnesses that also show the prima facie
ingredients of the offence. Therefore, there is no merits in the petition
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
8. While considering the prayer for discharge of the accused persons in
the case, the learned trial court is required to consider the prima facie
case against the accused persons and is not required to meticulously
examine the evidence available in the charge sheet. In the case of
"M.E. Sivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
Bengaluru", (2020) 2 SCC 768, in Para 17 and 18 of its judgment,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the legal principles
applicable in regard to the consideration at the stage of framing of
charge which reads as under:-
"17. This is an area covered by a large body of case
law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred
to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v. State of
Kerala and discern the following principles:
17.1. If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished
from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be
empowered to discharge the accused.
17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to
frame the charge at the instance of the
prosecution.
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence
in order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence
would consist of the statements recorded by the
police or the documents produced before the
Court.
17.4. If the evidence which the Prosecutor
proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the
accused, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by
the defence evidence, if any, "cannot show that
the accused committed offence, then, there will
be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
trial".
17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away
the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.
17.6. The court has to consider the broad
probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and
the documents produced before the court, any
basic infirmities appearing in the case and so
on. This, however, would not entitle the court to
make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot
be gone into, and the material brought on record
by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials for
entertaining the strong suspicion which can
form the basis for drawing up a charge and
refusing to discharge the accused.
18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked
into at the stage when the accused seeks to be
discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K
v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression, "the record
of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be
understood as the documents and the articles, if any.
produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give
any right to the accused to produce any document at
the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of
framing of the charge, the submission of the accused
is to be confined to the material produced by the
police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi)."
9. In the matter of "Ajay Singh and another v. State of Chhattisgarh
and others", (2017) 3 SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para
9 of its judgment held that:
"9. Chapter XVIII CrPC provides for trial before a Court
of Session. Section 227 empowers the trial Judge to
discharge the accused after hearing the submissions
of the accused and the prosecution and on being
satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. The key words of the
section are "not sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused". Interpreting the said provision,
the Court in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala has held that
the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the
charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to
exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial has been
made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it
is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros
and cons of the matter or into a weighing and
balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really
the function of the court, after the trial starts. At the
stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the
evidence in order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take
within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by
the police or the documents produced before the
court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to frame a
charge against him."
10. Further, in the matter of "Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation", reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, in Para 21 of its
judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the
scope of Sections 227 d and 228 of the Code, the
following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has
the undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out. The test to
determine prima facie case would depend upon
the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained, the court
will be fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office
or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the court, any basic infirmities,
etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the
court could form an 9 opinion that the accused
might have committed offence, it can frame the
charge, though for conviction the conclusion is
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot
be gone into but before framing a charge the
court must apply its judicial mind on the material
placed on record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was
possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the
court is required to evaluate the material and
documents on record with a view to find out if
the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face
value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For
this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage to
accept all that the prosecution states as gospel
truth even if it is opposed to common sense or
the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished
from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused and at this
stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end
in conviction or acquittal."
11. Recently in the matter of "Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar
Pradesh", reported in AIR 2024 SC 3540, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered in Para 12 to 22 & 30 that :
"12. We have already considered the meaning
of the expression "the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith" relying
on the decision in Debendra Nath Padhi's
case (supra) only to re-assure as to what are
the materials falling under the said
expression and thus, available for
consideration of an application filed for
discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC. In the
light of the same, there cannot be any doubt
with respect to the position that at the stage
of consideration of such an application for
discharge, defence case or material, if
produced at all by the accused, cannot be
looked at all. Once "the record of the case
and the documents submitted therewith" are
before the Court they alone can be looked
into for considering the application for
discharge and thereafter if it considers that
there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused concerned then he shall
be discharged after recording reasons
therefor. In that regard, it is only appropriate
to consider the authorities dealing with the
question as to what exactly is the scope of
consideration and what should be the manner
of consideration while exercising such power.
13. The decision in Yogesh alias Sachin
Jagadish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, this
Court held that the words "not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused"
appearing in Section 227, Cr.PC, postulate
exercise of judicial mind on the part of the
Judge to the facts of the case revealed from
the materials brought on record by the
prosecution in order to determine whether a
case for trial has been made out. In the
decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. N Suresh
Rajan & Ors. this Court held that at a stage of
consideration of an application for discharge,
the Court has to proceed with an assumption
that the materials brought on record by the
prosecution are true, and evaluate the
materials to find out whether the facts taken
at their face value disclose the existence of
the ingredients constituting the offence. At
this stage, only the probative value of the
materials has to be gone into and the court is
not expected to go deep into the matter to
hold a mini-trial.
14. In the decision in BK Sharma v. State of
UP4, the High Court of judicature at
Allahabad held that the standard of test and
judgment which is finally applied before
recording a finding of conviction against an
accused is not to be applied at the stage of
framing the charge. It is just a very strong
suspicion, based on the material on record,
and would be sufficient to frame a charge.
15. We are in agreement with the said view
taken by the High Court. At the same time, we
would add that the strong suspicion in order
to be sufficient to frame a charge should be
based on the material brought on record by
the prosecution and should not be based on
supposition, suspicions and conjectures. In
other words, in order to be a basis to frame
charge the strong suspicion should be the
one emerging from the materials on record
brought by the prosecution.
16. In the decision in Stree Atyachar Virodhi
Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr. , this
Court held that the word 'ground' in Section
227, Cr.PC, did not mean a ground for
conviction, but a ground for putting the
accused on trial.
17. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr., after
extracting Section 227, Cr.PC, this Court in
paragraph No.10 and 11 held thus: -
"10.
**** **** **** ****
.......If two views are possible and one of
them gives rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge
the accused and at this stage he is not to
see whether the trial will end in conviction
or acquittal. Further, the words "not
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused" clearly show that the Judge
is not a mere post office to frame the
charge at the behest of the prosecution,
but has to exercise his judicial mind to the
facts of the case in order to determine
whether a case for trial has been made out
by the prosecution. In assessing this fact,
it is not necessary for the court to enter
into the pros and cons of the matter or into
a weighing and balancing of evidence and
probabilities which is really the function of
the court, after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge
has merely to sift the evidence in order to
find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the
accused. In other words, the sufficiency of
ground would take within its fold the
nature of the evidence recorded by the
police or the documents produced before
the court which ex facie disclose that there
are suspicious circumstances against the
accused so as to frame a charge against
him."
18. In paragraph 13 in P. Vijayan's case
(supra), this Court took note of the principles
enunciated earlier by this Court in Union of
India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal which reads
thus: -
"10....
(1) That the Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for
the limited purpose of finding out whether
or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the
Court disclose grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly
explained the Court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the
trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case
would naturally depend upon the facts of
each case and it is difficult to lay down a
rule of universal application. By and large
however if two views are equally possible
and the Judge is satisfied that the
evidence produced before him while giving
rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully within his right to discharge the
accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under
Section 227 of the Code the Judge which
under the present Code is a senior and
experienced court cannot act merely as a
post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced
before the Court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This
however does not mean that the Judge
should make a roving enquiry into the pros
and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
19. In the light of the decisions referred
supra, it is thus obvious that it will be within
the jurisdiction of the Court concerned to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused concerned
has been made out. We are of the considered
view that a caution has to be sounded for the
reason that the chances of going beyond the
permissible jurisdiction under Section 227,
Cr.PC, and entering into the scope of power
under Section 232, Cr.PC, cannot be ruled out
as such instances are aplenty. In this context,
it is relevant to refer to a decision of this
Court in Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI. Taking
note of the language of Section 227, Cr.PC, is
in negative terminology and that the language
in Section 232, Cr.PC, is in the positive
terminology and considering this distinction
between the two, this Court held that it would
not be open to the Court while considering an
application under Section 227, Cr.PC, to weigh
the pros and cons of the evidence alleged
improbability and then proceed to discharge
the accused holding that the statements
existing in the case therein are unreliable. It
is held that doing so would be practically
acting under Section 232, Cr.PC, even though
the said stage has not reached. In short,
though it is permissible to sift and weigh the
materials for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case is made
out against the accused, on appreciation of
the admissibility and the evidentiary value
such materials brought on record by the
prosecution is impermissible as it would
amount to denial of opportunity to the
prosecution to prove them appropriately at
the appropriate stage besides amounting to
exercise of the power coupled with obligation
under Section 232, Cr.PC, available only after
taking the evidence for the prosecution and
examining the accused.
20. Even after referring to the aforesaid
decisions, we think it absolutely appropriate
to refer to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Kaushalya Devi v. State of MP. It
was held in the said case that if there is no
legal evidence, then framing of charge would
be groundless and compelling the accused to
face the trial is contrary to the procedure
offending Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. While agreeing with the view, we make
it clear that the expression 'legal evidence'
has to be construed only as evidence
disclosing prima facie case, 'the record of the
case and the documents submitted
therewith'.
21. The stage of Section 227, Cr.PC, is equally
crucial and determinative to both the
prosecution and the accused, we will dilate
the issue further. In this context, certain other
aspects also require consideration. It cannot
be said that Section 227, Cr.PC, is couched in
negative terminology without a purpose.
Charge sheet is a misnomer for the final
report filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.PC,
which is not a negative report and one that
carries an accusation against the accused
concerned of having committed the offence
(s) mentioned therein.
22. In cases, where it appears that the said
offence(s) is one triable exclusively by the
Court of Session, the Magistrate shall have to
commit the case to the Court of Session
concerned following the prescribed
procedures under Cr.PC. In such cases,
though it carries an accusation as
aforementioned still legislature thought it
appropriate to provide an inviolable right as a
precious safeguard for the accused, a pre-
battle protection under Section 227, Cr.PC.
Though, this provision is couched in negative
it obligated the court concerned to unfailingly
consider the record of the case and
document submitted therewith and also to
hear the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in that behalf to arrive at a
conclusion as to whether or not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused is
available thereunder. Certainly, if the answer
of such consideration is in the negative, the
court is bound to discharge the accused and
to record reasons therefor. The corollary is
that the question of framing the charge would
arise only in a case where the court upon
such exercise satisfies itself about the prima
facie case revealing from "the record of the
case and the documents submitted
therewith" against the accused concerned. In
short, it can be said in that view of the matter
that the intention embedded is to ensure that
an accused will be made to stand the ordeal
of trial only if 'the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith' discloses
ground for proceeding against him. When
that be so, in a case where an application is
filed for discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC, it
is an irrecusable duty and obligation of the
Court to apply its mind and answer to it
regarding the existence of or otherwise, of
ground for proceeding against the accused,
by confining such consideration based only
on the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in that behalf. To wit, such
conclusion on existence or otherwise of
ground to proceed against the accused
concerned should not be and could not be
based on mere suppositions or suspicions or
conjectures, especially not founded upon
material available before the Court. We are
not oblivious of the fact that normally, the
Court is to record his reasons only for
discharging an accused at the stage of
Section 227, Cr.PC. However, when an
application for discharge is filed under
Section 227, Cr.PC, the Court concerned is
bound to disclose the reason(s), though, not
in detail, for finding sufficient ground for
rejecting the application or in other words, for
finding prima facie case, as it will enable the
superior Court to examine the challenge
against the order of rejection.
30. In the light of the records of the case and
the documents submitted therewith, it can
only be found that the said finding of the Trial
Court on the ground to proceed against the
appellant is based on suppositions and
suspicions, having no foundational support
from the materials produced by the
prosecution. With respect to the first part of
the above-extracted recital from the order of
the Trial Court, it is to be noted that it is
nobody's case that the appellant was in the
Police Station or informed of the sufferance
from chest pain. As relates the second
suspicion, it is to be noted that the very Trial
Court itself, in the very order dated
19.04.2007 itself, stated that in Crime
No.351/1993 under Section 392, IPC the
deceased Ram Kishore was only a witness
and that the amount in cash and the draft
involved was that of the appellant. It is also
the case of the prosecution that the said case
was registered, at the instance of the
appellant against unknown persons. Hence,
when the appellant who lost the money went
to Police Station along with the witness
thereof, how can it be presumed by the Court
as a strong case for suspicion for
commission of the offence of criminal
conspiracy, especially taking note of the very
case of the prosecution that causative
incident for the case occurred when Ram
Kishore was returning after collecting the
business proceeds of the appellant and that
the appellant was informed of it over
telephone by Ram Kishore. When there is no
case for the prosecution that the appellant
pointed the fingers at Ram Kishore how the
lodging of the complaint, apprehending
custodial death of Ram Kishore who was
appellant's clerk for about 13 years, which
caused the registration of custodial death
case under FIR No.371/1993 can be taken as a
ground for framing charge against the
appellant for the offences punishable under
Section 302, IPC, 120-B with the aid of Section
34, IPC."
12. In light of the records of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, I examine the allegation against the petitioner in the case.
As per the F.I.R., it is alleged that the complainant is deceived by the
petitioners on the pretext of providing job in the Bhilai Steel Plant and
obtained Rs. 10 Lakhs in various installments, which were paid to
them through an electronic mode of bank transaction by the Phone-
pay app. The complainant has given the specific dates and amounts
that were transferred into the bank account of the petitioners/accused
persons. Whether or not the amount paid to the petitioners/accused
persons is the amount given towards a business transaction or
towards providing job, are disputed question of fact which is to be
decided after leading evidence of the parties. At this stage, there is
sufficient prima facie material available on record to frame the charge
and to proceed with the trial of the case against the petitioner. The
documents and WhatsApp chats produced by the petitioners/
accused persons along with the petition cannot be considered at this
stage as the same is not the part of charge sheet and it can be a
defence of the accused persons that the transaction of the amount is
not the deceived amount but it was the amount generated from the
business transaction between them. The learned trial court rightly
considered the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the
aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which this
court does not find any ground which warrants interference.
13. Accordingly, the present petition lacks merit and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
