High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/376/2017dismissed

Hanumant Singh Thakur v. Smt. Pinki Singh Thakur

2017-05-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 376 of 2017 Hanumant Singh Thakur S/o Gajrup Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o E.W.S. House No. 142, 143, M.P. Nagar, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Smt. Pinki Singh Thakur W/o Hanumant Thakur Aged About 28 Years

2. Ku. Vanshika D/o Hanumant Thakur Aged About 4 Years

3. Ku. Kavya Thakur D/o Hanumant Thakur Aged About 2 Years No. 2 & 3 are minor, Represented Through Mother Pinki Singh Thakur, All are R/o E.W.S. House No. 142, 143, M.P. Nagar Korba, At Present R/o Heeralal Ward, Doupara, Mungeli, Tahsil, Police Station & DistrictMungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Vipin Punjabi, Advocate.

For Respondents Shri Anant Bajpai, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 17/05/2017

1. The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking for modification of order dated 04.01.2017 passed by this court in CRMP No.1093 of 2016.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to certain provisions of the judgment dated 23.02.2015 passed in Criminal Revision No.18/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, points out that the enhancement made by this court so far as the applicants Nos.2 & 3 are concerned, is uncalled for and is not in accordance with rules. The same would amount to, granting of certain

additional advantage to the applicants No.2&3 which they are not otherwise entitled for.

3. Be that as it may, the present is a petition under Section 482 CrPC which has been instituted in the form of a review petition. Once this court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has decided the matter considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking note of the submissions put forth by the counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that there is no scope for further interference/recalling/modification of the order except for any clerical errors that must have occurred. The contention of petitioner would not fall within the category of clerical error.

4. Thus, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder