Suraj Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No.105 of 2018 • Suraj Soni S/o Sita Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o. Raj Kishore Nagar, Bilaspur, P. S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Superintendent Of Police District Koria (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

3. Station House Officer P. S. Manendragarh, District Koria Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

4. Satyanarayan Sonar R/o C. H. M. Road, Manendragarh, District Koria Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

5. Smt. Raj Kumari Sonar R/o C. H. M. Road, Manendragarh, District Koria Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

6. Smt. Sunita Gupta Agent Code- 21888 Option- I, Trade And Merchant Tile Private Limited, R/o. Ward No. 20, Ama Kherva Road, Infront Of Universal School, Manendragarh, District Koria Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

7. Option One Trade And Merchantile Private Limited, Through Chief Executive Officer, Corporate Office, Vill. Domju, 2nd Floor, Kacharibari, P.O. Domju, District Howra- 711405 West Bengal, District : Howrah, West Bengal

8. Option One Trade And Merchantile Private Limited, Through R. M. 299, B- 2nd Floor, Orbit Mall, Scheme No. 54, A- B Road, Indore Madhya Pradesh 452001, District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh ---- Respondents Petition for review (By Circulation in Chamber ) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. (Order passed on 01-10-2018)

1.

Prayer for review/recall of order dated 30-08-2018 passed by this Court, has been made on the submission that the petitioner has been granted liberty to file revision petition against an order of framing of charge. 2.

The very purpose of filing this Review Petition is misconceived in law and based on misconstruction of order passed by this Court earlier. The petitioner has been granted liberty to raise all the grounds available under the law at the stage of framing of charge to convince the Court below that no case is made out worth framing of charges. That means that even before framing of charge, it is open for the petitioner/appellant to argue against the framing of charge. This should not be understood as saying that the liberty has been granted only after framing of charge, to file revision petition against the same. 3.

Therefore, in my opinion, no case for review is made out. The review petition is misconceived in law and therefore, dismissed. SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane