IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 167 of 2003. Judgment reserved on: 28.5.2008 Date of decision: 29.5.2008 Het Ram & Ors. …….Petitioners Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This revision has been directed against the order dated 22.7.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Una in Case No.73-I of 2002 vide which learned Magistrate has ordered framing of charge against petitioners-accused for offence punishable under Sections 147, 448, 149 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the statement of Ashok Kumar under Section 154 Cr.P.C., FIR No.570 was registered on 28.10.2001 at Police Station, Una. In his complaint, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… the complainant has stated that they are owners of 12 shops and out of them 8 shops have been rented out. They had given one shop to Het Ram about 40 years ago, in which he was running business. This shop was not in good condition and therefore, its roof had fallen. This shop was got vacated from Het Ram for repairs but repairs could not be carried out due to shortage of funds. This shop was given for few months to Tarsem Lal another shopkeeper who deals in shoes. On 27.10.2001 at about 7 PM, when Tarsem Lal opened the shutter of this shop for taking out shoes then about 100 persons including petitioners-accused came and forcibly put their goods in the shop. Het Ram with common object with the other persons had forcibly placed his goods in the shop. At about 9.30 PM they pelted stones. They had forcibly put their lock on the shop. On 28.10.2001 at about 1 PM, when these persons forcibly opened the shutter of the shop at that time, they pushed ladies and children of the complainant party and abused them. In the shop goods valuing about Rs.40,000/- of Tarsem Lal were lying. On the basis of this statement FIR was registered at Police Station, Una. During investigation statements of Tarsem Lal, Gulab Singh, Satish Kumar and Chopal Singh were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court. The learned trial Magistrate on 22.7.2003 ordered the framing of charge against the petitioners- accused as noticed above, hence this revision. …3… 3. I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.K. Bansal learned Addl. Advocate General for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 and gone through the record. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate has submitted that on the basis of material on record, no case is made out for framing charge against the petitioners-accused under Sections 147, 448 and 149 IPC. It has been submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. Ashok Kumar is stranger and he can not be considered as an aggrieved person. As per prosecution case Tarsem Lal was dispossessed from his shop but he raised no grievance against his alleged dispossession from the shop. Het Ram has filed suit against Rattan Chand father of the complainant. Likewise Satya Devi owner of the shops has also filed suit against Het Ram etc. The dispute is purely of civil nature. There is delay in lodging the FIR. The incident allegedly took place on 27.10.2001 at 7 PM but FIR was registered on 28.10.2001 at 6.45 PM after deliberations. 4. The Addl. Advocate General has submitted that at the time of framing of charge material collected during investigation is to be considered. In the present case, learned Magistrate has considered the material collected during investigation and thereafter ordered framing of the charge. At the time of framing of charge appreciation of evidence is not required. Any person can bring to the notice of the police that cognizable offence has been committed. In the present case, Ashok Kumar complainant is otherwise has an …4… interest in the property, the defence of the petitioners-accused at the stage of framing of charge is not to be considered. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has supported the impugned order. 5. The statement of Ashok Kumar under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Incharge Police Post, Mehatpur when he happened to be at Mehatpur Bazar during patrolling and thereafter FIR was registered. Ashok Kumar in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has specifically named petitioners-accused for committing the offence for dispossessing Tarsem Lal from the shop and putting their goods forcibly in the said shop. He has also stated that on 27.10.2001 at about 9.30 PM, the said persons pelted stones and after placing their goods forcibly in the shop locked the same. On 28.10.2001, the said persons at about 1 PM again after opening the shutter forcibly entered the said shop and pushed the women and children of the complainant party and also abused them. Tarsem Lal had about Rs.40,000/- goods in the shop. The statement of Ashok Kumar on material particulars has been corroborated by Tarsem Lal Gulab Singh and Chopal Singh, shopkeepers having shops at Mehatpur bazaar, in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Satish Kumar who was present on 27.10.2001 at about 7 PM in the shop of Ashok Kumar has also corroborated the statement of Ashok Kumar on material particulars. The learned trial Magistrate has considered the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at the time of framing of charge. There is no …5… force in the contention of Mr. Thakur that since Tarsem Lal had not reported the matter, therefore, no action could be taken against the petitioners-accused. There are allegations against petitioners- accused for having committed offence at about 7 PM on 27.10.2001 and then at about 1 PM on 28.10.2001, as per statement of complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case delay if any, in lodging the FIR is to be seen during the trial. At the time of framing of charge appreciation of the evidence is not required, but it is to be seen whether prima facie case for framing the charge is made out or not. In State of M.P. vs. S.B. Johari and others (2000) 2 SCC 57 , the Supreme Court has held that it is settled law that at the stage of framing of the charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceedings further then a charge has to be framed. In State of Orissa vs. Debendra nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 , the Supreme court has held that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. In other words the defence of the petitioners-accused at the time of framing of the charge is not to be seen. The learned trial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record. There is sufficient …6… material on record for framing the charge against the petitioners- accused, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. 6. No other point was urged. 7. The result of the above discussion, revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Magistrate on 17.6.2008, the Registry is directed to send the record of the trial Court immediately so as to reach before the date fixed. The case is quite old and therefore, the learned trial Magistrate is directed to decide the case expeditiously. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. May 29, 2008 (sks) …7…