IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. 1942 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 HARJIT SINGH ETC. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. HS Brar, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against order dated 22.5.2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Taran Tarn. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, essentially, is that the offence under Section 295, Indian Penal Code, is not made out. The land in issue, on which the incident is alleged to have taken place, belongs to the petitioners since the time of their fore fathers. A civil suit, seeking declaration, is already pending in that regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the Jamabandi to say that Baba Naugaza Pir is not located on the land. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the provisions of Sections 148/149, Indian Penal Code, would not be Criminal Rev. 1942 of 2007 2 attracted. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the FIR at issue. In the FIR, it has been pleaded that there is a 2 kanal land belonging to Baba Naugaza Pir, near Gurudwara Chak Bhai Buta Singh. It has further been pleaded in the FIR that this place has great following in the area and a fair is held every year in the month of Bhadron on Ist Sunday by the residents of a number of villages. Other than the fair, on every Thursday, people from the area come and light earthen lamps at the spot. There is no permanent Sewadar, however, devotees offer Sewa and maintain the Pir/place of worship. On 22.7.2006, at about 10.30 p.m., the accused came on a tractor trolley, armed with weapons, and started raising slogans and demolishing the Pir/place of worship. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent- State is that the fact that prayers are offered at the Pir/place of worship on every Thursday and a fair is held, cannot be ignored. For the purposes of charges, I find that there was sufficient material available on the record to prima facie indicate commission of offence under Section 295, Indian Penal Code. Likewise, there is no ground to interfere with the framing of charges under Sections 148/149, Indian Penal Code. No ground for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. Any observation made hereinabove, is only for considering the revision petition and shall not be considered by the trial court as Criminal Rev. 1942 of 2007 3 expression of opinion on the facts of the case. September 9, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE