CRR No. 1811 of 2008 1 CRM No.M-23582 of 2008 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 1.8.2011 CRR No. 1811 of 2008 (O&M) Subhash Marya ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CRM No.M-23582 of 2008 (O&M) Vijay Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.K.Handa, Advocate and Mr.Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR No.1811 of 2008. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM 23582 of 2008. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Vide this order, the above mentioned two petitions will be disposed of as the controversy involved in both the cases is the CRR No. 1811 of 2008 2 CRM No.M-23582 of 2008 same. These petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 10.6.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. Complainant Dr.Rajni Thareja lodged the FIR No.575 dated 16.2.2005 under Sections 341, 451, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula against Vijay Kumar and S. Marya. The contents of the FIR read as under:- “ I am Principal of Hans Raj Public School, Sector 6, Panchkula and joined as such in February 1994 (Annexure P-1). The hostel of the school became operational in April 2003 and the principal's resident was also constructed in the Hostel Campus. I am in occupation of the above residence since April 2003 and I am residing with my family in the campus. 2) That in the month of October, 2003, the DAV College management committee, Chitragupta Road, New Delhi-110055, illegally transferred me and thereafter placed me under suspension. The said orders were challenged by me in the civil courts at Panchkula where the case is still pending. In these proceedings on 26.7.2005, the management of the school even moved an application for appointment of local commissioner to determine the factum from which place the applicant is coming and where she is living. This application was, however, CRR No. 1811 of 2008 3 CRM No.M-23582 of 2008 dismissed by the trial Court (Annexure -2). 3) That the civil court earlier on 15.6.2004 (Annexure-3) had passed the following orders, it will be in the interest of justice if the defendants ( DAV College management committee, New Delhi) are restrained from taking any action on the basis of findings made in the inquiry till the disposal of the present suit. 4) that despite above specific orders of the court the accused named above, who are at present managing the affairs of the school are desperate to harass the applicant and to force her to vacate the principal's residence situated in the Hans Raj Public School Campus. The accused No.2 had got a notice published in the news paper (Annexure -4), wherein it was mentioned that the applicant shall have to pay rent on account of her occupation of the said residential premises. Which shows the desperate attitude of the accused. Who by use of power or threats always wanted to harass the applicant and force her to vacate the premises in question. 5) That the applicant had gone out of station to Delhi on 8.12.2005 and the house was lying locked. The applicant returned on 16.12.2005 in the morning along with her family but to her utter surprise, they were not allowed to enter the school premises by the gate keeper and it was informed that they have the instructions of Shri S. Mariya and Shri Vijay Kumar of not allowing the applicant to enter the school premises. The CRR No. 1811 of 2008 4 CRM No.M-23582 of 2008 applicant was surprised at such attitude. 6) That the applicant has come to know that the locks of the house of the applicant have been forcibly broken and her belongings and household items have been forcibly occupied by the accused No.1 and 2. The costly belongings including cash and jewelry of the applicant and her family were residing in the house and applicant is greatly warred out the state of affairs and condition and status of house hold items. 7) That the applicant could not have been forcibly ejected out of the house of Principal situated in Hans Raj Public School campus, sector 6, Panchkula in this manner. The accused have committed on offence under Section 379, 451 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code unless the applicant is allowed to inspect her belongings. The applicant is not able to give the complete details of the financial loss on items which are missing. Those details shall be furnished, the moment applicant is allowed entry into her house. The matter is being brought to your notice for registration of the FIR it is requested that a case may be registered against the accused. Investigations may be conducted in accordance with law and the accused may be punished. The applicant be also allowed to enter into her house which the school authorities are illegally not allowing to the applicant.” Vide order dated 30.10.2006, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that the charge be framed against accused Vijay CRR No. 1811 of 2008 5 CRM No.M-23582 of 2008 Kumar under Sections 341, 451 and 427 IPC. So far as accused Subhash Mariya was concerned, he was discharged qua offence for which he had been challaned. Aggrieved by the said order, Vijay Kumar as well as the State preferred revision petitions. Vide order dated 10.6.2008, the Additional Sessions Judge held that the trial Court had rightly discharged Subhash Marya for an offence under Section 341 IPC but had erred in discharging him for an offence under Sections 451 and 427 IPC. The Charge against Vijay Kumar accused for an offence under Section 341 IPC was held to have been incorrectly framed. The charges framed against Vijay Kumar accused under Section 451 and 427 IPC were upheld. Hence, the present petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that no offence under Sections 451 and 427 IPC were made out against the petitioners. Since Subhash Marya had been discharged qua offences alleged to have been committed by him, the same amounted to acquittal and only an appeal could have been filed against him. Subhash Marya had merely acted on the directions of the Committee. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that both the petitioners were liable to be tried for an offence under Sections 451 and 427 IPC. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed. The Additional Sessions Judge had treated the revision petition filed against petitioner Subhash Marya as an appeal as he CRR No. 1811 of 2008 6 CRM No.M-23582 of 2008 had been discharged by the trial Court. FIR No.598 dated 31.12.2005 was registered against Rajni Thareja, present complainant, and others on a complaint made by Subhash Marya under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120- B IPC on the allegations that the present complainant had misappropriated the funds of the school. Admittedly, after investigation a cancellation report was submitted in the said FIR. FIR lodged by the present complainant is dated 16.12.2005, whereas, the FIR lodged against the present complainant by Subhash Marya is dated 31.12.2005. Apparently, the FIR lodged against the present complainant by the petitioner Subhash Marya was a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the complainant Dr.Rajni Thareja. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the specific allegations have been levelled against the present petitioners by the complainant. The complainant was informed by the gate keeper that on the instructions of Subhash Marya and Vijay Kumar , she was not to be allowed to enter the school premises. The complainant further came to know that the locks of her house had been broken forcibly and the belongings of the complainant were in possession of the present petitioners. Subhash Marya had got published a notice in the newspaper that the complainant would have to pay rent on account of her occupation of the residential premises. It has been further averred in the FIR that Subhash Marya wanted to harass the complainant and forced her to vacate the premises in question. Petitioner Vijay Kumar is to take the place of the complainant as a principal and would, thus, be also interested in CRR No. 1811 of 2008 7 CRM No.M-23582 of 2008 vacation of the house. The plea taken by petitioner Subhash Marya that he had acted at the instance of the Committee can be established by him in his defence during trial. In these circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge had, thus, rightly sent the case back to the trial Court to consider framing of charges in the light of the observations made in the impugned judgment. No ground for interference in the impugned order by this Court is made out. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 01, 2011 anita