Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Sah v. K.v.Rao

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2020CRMP/68/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged under Section 482 CrPC the dismissal of an FIR application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC regarding alleged cheating and forgery in an employment appointment dispute. The Court found the impugned orders were based on sufficient reasons and not perverse, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Cr.M.P. was dismissed in limine. The impugned order refusing to register the offence was affirmed.

Rajesh Kumar Sah Vs K.v.Rao — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Cr.M.P.No.68 of 2020

¶5

Rajesh Kumar Sah son of Panchannan Sah, aged about 43
years, R/o. Shivanad Nagar Sector-3, Raipur, District
and Tahsil Raipur (CG)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. K.V. Rao Immediate Business Chief Manager, SEC Railway Bilaspur (CG)

¶9

2. Shri Om Prakash, Assistant Business Manager, SECR, Nagpur (Maharashtra)

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.C.Ottalwar, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

05.02.2020

¶15

1. The petitioner has filed an application under Section

¶16

156(3) of the CrPC before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bilaspur for directing the police to
register the offence punishable under Sections 420,

¶17

467, 468 and 471/34 of the IPC against the
respondents, which was dismissed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur on 27.9.2018 and
thereafter it was affirmed in revision preferred by

¶18

the petitioner, against which, the petitioner has
filed this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶19

2. Mr.V.C.Ottalwar, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶20

would submit that both the Courts below have

¶21

¶22

concurrently erred in not directing for registration
of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
471/34 of the IPC against the respondents, as such,
the orders of the Courts below deserve to be set
aside.

¶23

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and other documents appended thereto.

¶24

4. The dispute relates to appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Assistant Commercial Manager in examination held in the year 2013, which the petitioner also challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, which was dismissed and thereafter with a delay of five years, complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was filed, which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur assigning sufficient reasons and in exercising the discretion vested to her, duly affirmed by the revisional Court, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record.

¶25

5. Accordingly, the CrMP being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine .

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

 (Sanjay K.Agrawal)

¶28

B/-

Rajesh Kumar Sah v. K.v.Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Sah v. K.v.Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Shankar and Others Vs Padma and Others

Guddi Bai Vs Sonkeliya and Others

Harmati Vs Baishakha and Anr.

Khiru (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs (a ) Mini Bewa

Nanda Kumar Pathak Vs Shri Ram Bishal and Others

Sukutri Bai Vs Surji Bai and Others