IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.71 of 2009 Date of decision : July 8, 2009 Kuldip Singh …Petitioner. Versus Mustak Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has been summoned, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the trial Magistrate to answer to the charge for offences, under Sections 451, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The order was challenged by the petitioner, by filing Revision Petition, before the Sessions Judge, which stands dismissed. Now the present petition has been filed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner, by the learned counsel, is that offence, under section 451 of the Indian Penal code, is not made out, inasmuch as even in the statement of the complainant, which he made, while leading preliminary evidence, it is not stated that the kitchen, in Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… question, was used for human dwelling or custody of property. Copy of the statement, made by the respondent, has been placed on record, today. Other offences are alleged to be triable by Panchayat. 4. No doubt, in the statement, it is not specifically mentioned that in the shed, which was raised as a kitchen, in connection with the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner, no property had been kept, but that by itself does not mean that there was no property in that shed. It has been specifically stated by the complainant that the structure had been constructed as a kitchen, which suggests that some raw material for cooking as also fuel etc., was supposed to be there. In any case, a definite finding can be recorded only after the pre-charge evidence is recorded by the trial Magistrate. 5. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Cr.MP No.405/2009 Infructuous. July 8, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.