Crl. Misc. No. M-14163 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-14163 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: August 27, 2010 Amarjit Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. Petitioners-Amarjit Singh, Kulwinder Singh @ Happy, Kamaljit Singh, Jaspal Singh and Jagtar Singh, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing order dated 11.3.2008, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Anneuxre P/2), charge sheet dated 11.3.2008 (Annexure P/3) and order dated 13.12.2008 (Annexure P/7), vide which their revision petition filed against the order dated 11.3.2008 was dismissed. FIR No. 162 dated 3.7.2006 was got lodged against the petitioners by Pushpinder Kaur. She narrated therein that her mother Darshan Kaur had purchased the plot in dispute from Jimindara Welfare Society, for a sum of Rs. 5.29 lakhs, on the basis of 99 years lease and that plot was given to her. She constructed two rooms in that plot and also constructed a boundary wall fixing iron gate therein. On 3.7.2006 at about Crl. Misc. No. M-14163 of 2010 2 11 PM, she was informed on telephone that Amarjit Singh, who is the owner of Amarjit Palace, was demolishing her house. When she accompanied by her paternal uncle Ravinder Singh went to that place at about 11.15 PM, they found Amarjit Singh was demolishing the boundary wall with the help of tractor trolley and at that time 10-15 persons were with him. That accused demolished the house also. Thereafter, the iron gate, an iron drum, two rubber drums, five iron girders and shuttering goods, which were lying at that place, were loaded in the trolley and taken away by those persons. She also named some of the accused in her statement made by her before the police, on the basis of which the FIR was recorded. During the investigation, the photographs of this spot were taken and the tractor trolley were also taken into possession. The accused were arrested and an inquiry was conducted into the incident by SP (D), who found the accused to be innocent. However, during the investigation, sufficient evidence were collected against the petitioners/accused and accordingly, the report was submitted against them under Section 173 (2) of the Code. On the basis of the documents sent alongwith the police report and relied upon by the prosecution, the SDJM found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused had committed the offences under Sections 454, 456 and 380 read with Sections 149/148 IPC. They were charged accordingly, vide aforesaid order dated 11.3.2008. The accused preferred a revision against that order before the Additional Sessions Judge, but the same was dismissed, vide aforesaid order. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused that no such offence, for which the accused have been charged, is made out from the police report and the documents sent Crl. Misc. No. M-14163 of 2010 3 alongwith that. It cannot be said that any such offence of criminal trespass was committed much less lurking house trespass. He also submitted that two inquiries were conducted in which the petitioners were found to be innocent and in view of the findings recorded in the inquiries, recommendation was made for discharging the accused. All these points were duly raised before the trial court and after taking into consideration the documents sent alongwith the police report, the trial court charged the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused might have been found innocent during the inquiries conducted by the higher police officers, but the court was to take into consideration the documents being relied upon by the prosecution against the accused. From the contents of the police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code, and the documents, which were filed with the same, there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed the aforesaid offences. It was after the sunset and before the sunrise that the accused criminally trespassed into the property in possession of the complainant, after demolishing the boundary wall, with an intention to commit the offence of mischief and theft and committed the theft of articles of the complainant. From the above discussion, I conclude that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, does not suffer from any illegality. It cannot be said that there is any abuse of the process of the court or that for securing the ends of justice this order is liable to be set aside. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. August 27, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE