SEEMA GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order 29.11.2010 passed by the District Judge(East)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, dismissing the criminal revision petition No.70/2010 titled State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) �vs- Mukesh Gupta & Ors..

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the complainant in respect of FIR No.55/2008 under Sections 323/452/34 IPC registered by PS:New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. It was alleged by her that on 9.12.2008, she, along with her brother, Rajeev Jain, was present in the office of Vanasthali Public School. At about 2:20 P.M., she heard noises and saw the guard of her brother, namely, Ashutosh Kumar, was being beaten up by her husband and nandois, Pramod Gupta and Tarun Garg with danda. It has also been alleged that thereafter, all the three accused persons entered the office of her brother. The husband of the complainant caught hold of her hair and abused her. The matter was investigated by the Police and a Chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 323/452/34 IPC. The learned Magistrate framed the charges only under Section 323 IPC and not under Section 452 IPC. The ground for not framing the charges under Section 452 IPC was that the incident had taken place in the School, the same being a public place. House trespass has been defined in Section 442 IPC. It means trespass into any building, tent or vessel used for home dwelling or any other building used as a place of worship.

(3.) THE State, feeling aggrieved by the said order, preferred a revision petition before the Court of Sessions, which was also dismissed. THE learned Revisionist Court relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in State of Haryana �vs- Prem Singh, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 537 to hold that the School may be a public place, but it is not a dwelling house and, therefore, no offence under Section 452 can be made out.