Dismissed

Raju @ Rajnarayan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Sept 2008CRMP/243/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed revision challenging order of Sub Divisional Magistrate who committed illegality by demanding security without hearing. Court distinguished cited precedent by noting trial court did not demand surety during preliminary enquiry and held petition devoid of merit, dismissed at admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed at the stage of admission for being devoid of merit.

Raju @ Rajnarayan Sahu Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2008)

¶1

^S<s

¶2

HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS^RH AT BILASPUR Cp.M.P.No.243of2Q08

¶3

5B : Hon'ble Mr. T.P. SharwQ, J.

¶4

Petitloner Raju ©Rajnarayan Sohu S/o Late Shri" Sundertat Sahu, Aged about 40 yrs. ft/o Nehru Chowk, Balodabazar, District Roipur (C.a.)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

¶7

R®st?ond®nt State of Chhattisgarh Th.roughColiector, ftaipur (C.6.)

¶8

^PPLIC^TEON UNDER SECHON 482 OF CO&E OF CRIMIN^L

¶9

PftOCEDUR€.1973

¶10

^Ar. prakash Tiwarl, counset for the petitioner,

¶11

Mr< Ashish ^upta, Panel iawyer for the responcient/State.

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

(Passed^{on5thSeptember,2008)}

¶14

<sup>•• ,^.

¶15

Thjs petstion i.s directedt against the order dated 26.3.2008 passed^{bytheFirstAdditionalSessionsJudge,BalodaBazar,inCriminai} Revssion No. 04/08 by which the learned First Additiona! Sessions Judg^ has partly atlowed the reyision agdnst the order dated 24.1.2008 passed^{by1+ieSubDivisiona!Magistrate,BabdaBazar,mCriminalCa^} No.02/2008.

¶16

The order Is challenged on the ground^{'tf^at} tearned revisional court has not the order by 1tie Sub bivj^lona! quashed passed Magsstrate, Baloda Bazar and 1+iereby committed a" jltegallty.

¶17

I have heard Shr? Prakash Tlwari, coynse! for the petitioner and Shri Ashish <5upta, Panel tewyer for the State and pcru^d the petition, order impugned, order dated 24.1.2008 and preiiminary order under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Proc^dure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as,^lthe Code').

¶18

-2-

¶19

^,..

¶20

Learned coun^i for the submits that wjthout petttioner affordjng ^^ opportuinity of hearing to the petitioner, the learned Sub Divisional Ma9istrate has passed the order for executing the bond of Rs, 5000/- for one year and committed an iltegality, although^'the part of the order was modifled/reversed in revjsionat order, The Sub Divisional Magistrate was not competent to pass such order wlthout affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitloner.

¶21

5, Learned counsel for the petitioner is placed reHance in the matter of Surendra V. Th^ Stata cf M^harashtra & ors, in which It has held by the Bombay High Court that 1+ie Court h not competent to dlemand any suret^ during an enquiry under Section 110 of the Code except jn terms of Section 116 (3) of the Code.

¶22

On the other hand, orcter impugned te supported on behalf of the re.spondent/State.

¶23

7, In the instant case, on 1iie basis of Ishtegasha filed on behalf of the police, ^e Sub DiyisionaJ Magistrate, gabda Bazar after perysa! and satisfying passed preliminQry order as required under Sectjon 111 of the Code and also issued summons against the petjttoner \ •^ (respondent therein). Releyant part of the orciarsheet reveals that ynt^^ ^ f^R^ ^^iT ^iid^S'HS ^T ^^ci^T ^IT 7rer %N ^^ ?N IR qTCT 111 yfT.1Ft. ^ ^TS^ ^RTt^q? ^f ^q; ^ ^^ -ST^ -3SM<i"! ^TT^ ^&^ ^ f^T? WT^ 5000/- ^SS^ ^lN ?^K '®?T^ 'q?T ^TS praTT yl^MddJ^ ^ W^ ^ f^? 1BT?f^? ^r^?r T?i^T f^rr ^PIT i".

¶24

8, In the case of Surendra's (supra) the trjal court has not demoinded any surety In terms of Section 116 (3) of the Code cnd m absence of any demand under the aforesaid proyislons, any order demanding surety was not legd/In 1+iis case, the learned trial court has not demanded surety during on enquiry, but he has oniy issued Itie

i200l(4)Crimes2

-g.

preliminary order under Section 111 of the Code< The case of Surendra's (supra) is dlstinguishabJe on the facts of 1+ie present case.

¶29

^.:.

¶30

9, The petitjoner has preferred this revision against theorder dated 24,1,2008 passed by the Sub Divjsional Magistrate Babda Bazar and the scme was rnodified in revlsion to the extent of demanding of securlty vide notice ,issued to hlm separately. Frorp the perusal of the order dated 24.1.2008 it is clear that aftersatisfying him^Jf, the Sub Dlyjsional Magistrate has passed the order under Section 111 of the Code and also mentjoned the same thing m the order sheet. T^se Sub bivjsiona! Magistrate has not passed any fjna! order for execution of surety, The petitioner ss reqyjred to rcply and adduce the eyidence on hjs behalf. Learned reyisional court has not committed any iJ(ega!ity or infirmity.

¶31

Consequently, the petltion being deyoid of ment is llable to be dismlssed and it is hereby dismis^%d at 1+»e stage of admission.

¶32

B/-

¶33

Sd/T.P.Sharma Judge

¶34

Raju @ Rajnarayan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Rajnarayan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghunu Ram Gawade Vs State

Manmattu Ram Vishwas and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gulab Chand Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Urmila Devi and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Devnarayan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh