IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 371 of 2004 1. Smt. Genda Devi W/o R.L. Yadav R/o Ward No. 9, Zila Parishad Hospital Compound Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Surjeet Singh Kamara S/o Sri Harbans Singh R/o Ward No. 9, Zila Parishad HOspital Compound Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Addl. District Judge / I F.T.C. Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Chief Judicial Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Dr. R.C. Garg, Superintendent Community Health Centre, Kichha Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Asstt. Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.03.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / I Fast Track Court, Udham Singh 2 Nagar, whereby the said court has dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2003, and affirmed the order dated 13.06.2003, passed by the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar), in Criminal Case No. 960 of 1998. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 4 Dr. R.C. Garg, Superintendent of Community Health Centre, Kichha, lodged a first information report against the petitioners alleging that under the garb of interim order dated 07.04.1995, passed by Allahabad High Court (whereby it was directed that if the petitioners were in possession, their possession shall not be disturbed), the petitioners encroached upon the public property and destroyed it. They further threatened the employees of the Health Department, who were in occupation of the quarters to vacate the same, and destroyed the property. The police investigated the Crime No. 173 of 1995, and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners in which the petitioners were summoned as accused to face trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 452, 353, 506 of I.P.C. The Magistrate before whom the trial is pending, after hearing the parties found that there is sufficient material on record to frame the charge against the accused petitioners, and directed that the charge be framed. Against said order dated 13.06.2003, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, after the same 3 is affirmed in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2003, this petition has been filed. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 353 and 506 of I.P.C. are not made out, and as such, the impugned order is erroneous in law. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. Section 506 of I.P.C. provides punishment for criminal intimidation. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Anandi Devi herself had vacated the house in question on 25.03.1995, as is apparent from her statement. On perusal of her statement, which is annexed as Annexure –8 to the petition, shows that she has also stated that said room which was vacated, was demolished by Genda Devi and Surjeet Singh (present petitioners). Perusal of statement of other witness Shanti Devi shows that she too has alleged in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioners Genda Devi and Surjeet Singh asked her to vacate the quarter allotted to her. She has further stated that she was threatened by the petitioners. Said witness was midwife with the respondent hospital. Witness Akilluddin has also stated that on 28.03.1995, the present petitioners demolished the room in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to annexure 4 filed with the rejoinder affidavit, and it is contended that the petitioners were given possession of the quarter occupied by Anandi Devi on 25.03.1995. 6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that there is sufficient material to frame the charge in respect of offences punishable under Section 353 and 506 of I.P.C. against the petitioners, and the trial court and the revisional court have committed no error of law in directing that the charge be framed against the petitioners. 7) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Interim order dated 28.08.2004, passed by this Court, stands automatically vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 23, 2010. H. Negi 5