IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 1040 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 27.1.2009 Neelam Rani Versus Raj Kumar & Ors. Present:- Mr. Sandeep Punchi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that while exercising revisional jurisdiction the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, has usurp the jurisdiction by dropping the charge under Section 452 IPC which prima facie is made out from the allegations in the FIR as well as the material gathered by the prosecution agency during investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the respondents are facing trial under Section 323 IPC after charges under Section 452 IPC has been dropped by the Revisional Court by impugned order on 21.12.2007. It will not be appropriate to enter into the appreciation of evidence while exercising inherent jurisdiction to test the validity of the impugned order dated 21.12.2007. This petition, in peculiar circumstances of the case, is disposed of with an observation that it will be open to the trial Court, on the basis of the material produced before it to alter charge in context to the necessary Crl. Rev. No. 1040 of 2008 -2- ingredients required under Indian Penel Code. If any such application is filed on the basis of the material before the trial Court, it will be open to the trial Court to alter the charge exercising jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr.P.C and to add the charge of house trespass. In peculiar circumstances of this case, it is observed that the order dated 21.12.2007 does not based upon actual evidence. This order will not bar the trial Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr.P.C. January 27, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge