T ^ ngle Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ Cr, M.P. No, J^^L / 2009 Petitioner .^^. ».^^.^ lt^"< ^'^^w'.~.^y.^. ^...••••••••"^^" Ram Narayan Dewanga<7S/o Late Motu Ram Dewanga^ Aged about 73 years, R/o Qr.No.288 / B, Samta Colony, Presently residing Near Ram Moorthi Aganval House, Gali No.2, Mahamaya Para, P.S. - Purani Basti, Distt. Raipur-(C/G.) Versus ^ Non-Applicant ^ ro~ .^ .v^ (^^ 2^ State of Chhattisgarh "Tp^^f^ -P-^- Se^^i^^ f/^^ A.-^-C'--^ !J^^.if.4^, cl^^{^c/^d^'~ /y^/^f^-h PETITIQN UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ^^i/^f CODE 1973 ^ j3>^^-. ^^o-y : --- ^ iK^^ »on-ftS>pMeent 1^1 ^' ^ f ^ -? ^ •23"* ^opi'te®a@ai ff/e Kirtsa &s.2.»0ei?aaga®» ag^<3 3S sr©sc3»^^ &@s£' @13 Sus Sta'sd ?Xsno€£>3?;Ol3, S»»S»BOR$®A,^^iOS»£?S.^triCt. R®.t»aadgaoa(.O.®.).Pres^tAy residteat afc Qr* Mo» 288/te, @^ta Qo3j9ny» P.S. aa^a.s^ati Klaga^ aaiy^l:^ T^^iX and Mstriat. Rsip^i: <e.a»), •^ ^ ^ f M^^.^^. ^ ..,,^^A'^,'. ^^ ^. mOH COURT OF CaiHATTISGARH s BHASPUR SmaLB BENCH : HON»BLBSHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRFUrA8TAVA»J* Cr.M-P. No.608/2009 PBTmONER RESPONDBNT Ram Narayan Dewangan Veraus State of Chhattisgarh and anottier Petltlon under Section 482 of tlie Cr.P.C. Aopearaace: Shri S. Imtiaz Ali, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Panel l^svyer for the State/respondent No. 1. Shri Shivendu Pandya, couasel for respondent No.2. ORAL-ORDBR (Passedon 18.7.2011) Heard. 1. This petition imder Section 482 of fhe Cr.P.C., faas been filed against the order dated 20th July, 2009 passed by 10til Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Crimmal Revision No.49/2009, arising out of order dated 12.2.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 110/09. 2. By fhe impugned order, fhe revisional Court has partly aUowed the revision and has dtrected registration of ofience under Seetion 294 and 506-B of fhe IPC, in addition to offence iinder Section 323 of fhe IPC registered by fhe Ma^strate aStea' recording fhe \ preliminary statements offhe compladnant and his witnesaes. . -—.- —-— -2- •@ 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has argued that fhe complaint and the preliminary statements of the complainant, his son and other witnesses namely-Smt. Kanta Bai & Sonu Masffli, cleeaiy speak out ingredients for commission of offences mider Section 447, 452 & 454 of tlie IPC, yet the Courts below liave failed to exercise its jurisdlction in registering the oflTence against respondent No.2 under Section 447, 452 & 454 offhe IPC. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner ai^ued that the petitioner has lodged report against ftie daughter-in-law, who entercd the house along wifh two persons by breaking lock and csash and other valuable items were taken away by two ofher persons, who faad ^ entered the house along with the accused. It is also submitted , that (he Courts below, on fhe basis of the contents of ttie complaint and preliminary statement recorded, hsive found that the complaint discloses ingredients ofoffence under Sections 323, 294 and 506 -B offhe IPC, even fhenfhe offences under Seetions 447, 452 & 454 of fhe IPC have not been registefed. Leanaed counsel for the petitioner submitted that tiie ccmtents of fhie . complaint and the preliminaiy statements prvna fade vxake out > fhat fhe respondent No.2 entered fhe house and later on she abused and intlmidated the complainant and also assaulted, resulting in injury. Therefore, it is a clear case of criminal trespass. He submits fhat present is a case relating to dwelling used for the purpose of residence by the complainant and therefore ttie ofience under Sections 447, 452 & 454 of the IPC would also be made out on the basis of same material which has -3- y ^^SSM^:S^: come on record in fhe form of complamt and tiie prcUDairmTy statements. In support of his submlssions, leamed counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the judgment of Supreme Court in fhe case of Vidyadharan Vs. State of Kerala1, 5. On the other hand, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 submltted fhat respondent No.2 is the daughter-in-law of ttie complainant and upon complaint made, when the dovst directed the police to make an iaquiiy and submlt report, the poMce submitted report, stating that res<Miant No.2 m wife of Arun Dewangan, son of ftie complainant and tliere is no divorce between the parties and ftjrfher that tihe accused taas beai residtng in ftie house as a member of fhe family. He ftirfher submits fhat bofh fhe Courts below have carefully examined 1$ie contents of (he compliant and fhe preliminary statements before coming to the conclusion fhat except offence under Sections 323, 294 & 506-B of the IPC, no case of commission of offence under any ofher provision of IPC is made out indudir^ Sections 447, 452 Bs 454 oftheIPC. 6. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused fhe records. 7. Undisputedly, fhe petitioner is fhe fafher-in-law of respondent No.2. The allegations, which have been contained in fhe compliant and fhe preliminary statements, were examined by fhe leamed trial Court. The leamed trial Court, after taking into 3(2004)1SCC215 , -4- ^.^s^e' consideration (he report offhe p)Uce, found fhat respondent No.2 is the daiighter-in-law offhe complainant and ftaere ts no divorce between Arun and respondent No.2 and furfh.er that the accused , has been residing in ftie house. On that consideration the leamed trial Court registered fhe offence under Section 323 <rf the IPC only. On revision being preferred, the revisioxiat Comt has also taken into consideration those VCTy aspects. HoweveF, coaa^idermg that certain abuses are aUeged to have been hurled aad (feffeat was adininistered, fhe leamed revisional Court has directed reg^stration ofojGGence under Sections 294 & 506-B crffhe IPC. 8. The submission of leamed counsel for the petitionw that the complaint and prelimtnary statements malee out a caise of criminal house trespass against respondent No.2, cannot be accepted. I find that fhe Court below after gou^ tliough tfae complaint and the preliminaiy statements as also fhe report submitted by the poUce has found that the accused is fhe daughter-in-Iaw and so far, there is no divorce between respondent No.2 and son offhe complaint The conclusdon drawn by the Courts below that in the light ofthese circumstances and the report of fhe police, there is no sufflcient ground for proceedii^s against respondent No.2, in so far as aMegation of commission of offence under Sections 447, 452 & 454 is concemed, in fhe opiirion of fhis Court, fhere is no perversity or any error apparent on fhe face of record ^) as to warrant eaay interference by this Coiirt. The entiy or residmg of respondent No.2, prima fade has been found by ftie Court to be in the -5- capacity as the daughter-in-law of the complainant. This is an admitted position also, because fhe complamant and his son botfa < have stated in their statement fhat respondent No.2 is fhe wife of > Arun Dewangan, son of the complainant. Therefore, the opinion formed by fhe Courts below fhat there is no suffidient ground fi)r proceedings under Sections 447, 452 & 454 of fhe IPC, does aot appear to be based on any extraneous consideration or irrelevant material. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere wifh fhe order passed by the Court below. 9. The petition is fherefore dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Pra'w^Q