CRM No. M 24956 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 24956 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.03.2010 Hardev Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent (s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mrs. Baljit Mann, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gurpartap Singh Gill, Additional A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) FIR No. 59 dated 16.08.2006 under Sections 450, 324, 323, 148, 149, 506 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Koom Kalan, Ludhiana was registered against the petitioner and others on the statement made by Joginder Singh son of Teja Singh. It is alleged in the FIR that on 16.08.2006, complainant Joginder Singh along with others were present in the Gurudwara in question when Hardev Singh and others petitioners were armed with dangs, sotis and gandasi caused injuries to Sandeep Singh and Harpal Singh. CRM No. M 24956 of 2009 2 It is stated that petitioner Hardev Singh has filed a civil suit being President of Gurudwara Sahib Committee, Koom Kalan, Ludhiana. It is also stated that he is still President of the Gurudwara in question and therefore it cannot be said that he trespassed in the Gurudwara. It was accordingly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he could not be charged under Section 452 IPC for criminal house trespass in the said Gurudwara where the said incident took place. While disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by petitioner, learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Ludhiana vide order dated 17.11.2006 made the following observations:- “It is admitted fact on the file that when the plaintiff was elected on 16.07.2003, all the previous members had resigned vide resolution dated 16.07.2003 but there is no such resolution filed by President or his committee. I made it clear that if the defendants have already elected new committee, they are duty bound to remove the plaintiff with due process of law. The citation cited by the counsel for the defendants 1998 (3) CCC Page 342 case titled as Kameshwar Singh and others v. Bhola Prasad Yadav and another is not applicable to this case as the plaintiff is never removed from the Presidentship by due process of law. Accordingly application is disposed off and defendants are restrained from removing the plaintiff from his Presidentship without adopting legal procedure.” Even the revision petition against the aforesaid order was dismissed. It appears that the petitioner was the President of the Gurudwara in question on the date of incident. If the petitioner was the CRM No. M 24956 of 2009 3 President of the Gurudwara on the said date, the question would rise whether an offence punishable under Section 452 IPC is attracted or not. However, the said order was neither brought to the notice of the trial Court at the time of the framing of the charge and nor was argued in the revision petition. In view of the above, the order dated 07.04.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Annexure P-7) and the order dated 17.01.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (Annexure P-9) is set aside qua framing of charge under Section 452 IPC against the petitioner and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to re-consider the framing of the charge under Section 452 IPC after taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Civil Court qua possession of the said Gurudwara on the date of the occurrence. However, any observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the fresh order be passed in accordance with law. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge March 08, 2010 mohan