IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.9461 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 19, 2011 VIKAS & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. SS Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Challenge in this petition filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is to order dated 25.2.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which order dated 18.9.2007 (Annexure P-3), passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, has been set aside, revision petition has been allowed and the trial court has been directed to proceed to hear the parties on the point of charge afresh, in the light of observations made in the judgment. 2 Vide order (Annexure P-3), the Magistrate held that no prima facie ground to frame a charge for commission of any offence is made out. Challan in the case had been filed under Sections 380/427, Indian Penal Code. Primarily, what weighed with the Magistrate is that there is no evidence in regard to Criminal Misc. No.9461 -M of 2010 2 ownership or possession of any shop in the name of complainant-Puran Chand in abadi deh of Village Nagla farm, except a decree for permanent injunction passed against some private persons, who were proceeded against ex-parte. The accused were not party to the civil litigation and, therefore, it has been observed that ex-parte decree has no value. The evidentiary value of the statements of witnesses, who gave statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, has also been considered. 3 A revision was carried. Vide order dated 25.2.2009 (Annexure P-1), the revision petition has been allowed. 4 The discussion on the relevant issue is in para-11 of order dated 25.2.2009 (Annexure P-1), wherein it has been held that for commission of offence of theft, it is not necessary that the complainant or the victim should be the owner of the property. What is required to be seen is that the complainant is in possession of the property. It has also been observed that though the accused were not a party to the judgment rendered by the civil court, however, the Magistrate was not justified in ignoring the same altogether. Even if the complainant was not armed with a judgment and decree, the court could not ignore the statements of witnesses; namely, Sher Singh, Kiran Pal, Mann Singh, Spatter Singh and Khushi Ram, who are residents of the same village and gave statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. The said witnesses have stated that the complainant was in possession of the shop, which the accused persons illegally demolished and committed theft of Criminal Misc. No.9461 -M of 2010 3 articles and bricks lying in the shop. Photographs are on the challan file, which indicate, prima facie, the commission of the alleged offences. 5 Having considered the legality of judgment dated 25.2.2009 (Annexure P-1), I am of the considered opinion that the same is legally tenable and is in accordance with the scope of consideration at the stage of framing of charge. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any illegality in the order (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further not been able to show that the material on which reliance has been placed by the court of Sessions has been perversely read. 7 In such circumstances, no ground for interference in jurisdiction under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is made out. 8 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. August 19, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?