High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/1916/2019disposed off

Mokhtaar Ansari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-08-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1916 of 2019

1. Mokhtaar Ansari S/o Mehrab Ansari Aged About 36 Years R/o Balrampur, Police Station And Thasil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

2. Akhtar Ansari S/o Mehrab Ansari Aged About 34 Years R/o Balrampur, P.S. And Tahsil -Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujgaj, Chhattisgarh.

3. Patel @ Sattar Ansari S/o Mehrab Ansari Aged About 32 Years R/o Balrampur, P.S. And Tahsil-Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

4. Intaj Ansari S/o Mehrab Ansari, Aged About 29 Years R/o Balrampur, P.S. And Tahsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balrampur, District- BalrampurRamanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri Sunil Tripathi & Ku. Varsha Sharma, Advocates.

For Respondent/State :

Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 22/08/2019 Heard.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of CrPC for modification of the order dated 2.8.2019 passed by this Court in MCRCA NO.910/2019.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that incorrect crime number, offences & police-station have been mentioned in Para-3 of the order dated 2.8.2019 passed in MCRCA No.910/2019, therefore, the applicant is unable to take benefit of the order passed in his favor. Hence, it is prayed that the order may be corrected to the aforesaid extent.

3. Learned State Counsel has no objection.

4. Perused the order dated 2.8.2019.

5. On perusal of the record of MCRCA No.910/2019, it is found that Crime Number and Sections of IPC are wrongly mentioned as '119/2019' and "452,323 r/w 34 of IPC" in place of "83/2019" & "294, 506, 147, 451, 452 of IPC". It is also apparent that the police-station has also been wrongly mentioned as 'Police-Station Ghudhiyari, District-Raipur', which should have been 'Police-Station Balrampur, District-Balrampur, Ramanujganj'. It prima facie appears that the aforesaid typographical errors have inadvertently occurred in the order impugned, which, in the interest of justice, are required to be corrected.

6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. It is ordered that the crime mentioned in Para-3 of the impugned order be now read as '83/2019'. Similarly the offences mentioned be now read as "294, 506, 147, 451, 452 of IPC" and police-station mentioned in the same paragraph be now read as "Balrampur, District-Balrampur, Ramanujganj".

7. A copy of this order be made part of MCRC(A) No.910/2019. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) JUDGE Nisha