PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which in turn was passed in a revision petition preferred by the respondents 2 to 5 herein against the order dated 19.4.2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby charge for the offence under Section 448/34 IPC was framed against the said respondents 2 to 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition of the respondents 2 to 5 and discharged them of the said offence.

(2.) The facts are that as per the prosecution, an FIR was registered on the basis of a statement of Pradeep Kumar (the petitioner herein) that he was a tenant in respect of Flat No. E-137B, Dilshad Garden under Keval Kishan Goel (respondent No.2 herein). The site plan of the premises indicates that on the western-most portion of the property there is a covered balcony and as we move eastward, there is a bed room and to its north there is a kitchen and bath room and WC. Towards the east of this bed room, there is another bed room which is under the occupation of the respondent No.2. The rest of the premises described above is in the occupation of the present petitioner and his family. The access to the portion in the occupation of respondent No.2 is through the premises which is in the occupation of the petitioner. The allegation is that on 12.12.1999 the respondent No.2 came along with respondents 3,4 and 5 at about 9 p.m. and requested the petitioner that they want to talk to him. On the petitioner's opening the door, all the said persons are alleged to have forcibly entered the premises and to have occupied the same. On the objection of the petitioner/complainant, the said accused persons started throwing the belongings out of the house. A complaint was filed that these persons have forcibly entered the room and forcibly taken the possession. On the basis of this, the FIR was registered and investigation ensued. The charge sheet was filed and, thereafter, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of the material on record, framed the charge under Section 448/34 IPC against all the respondents 2 to 5. Being aggrieved of this order, these respondents filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who, allowed the revision petition as indicated above and they were discharged.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned order and stated that although the learned Additional Sessions Judge was mindful of the fact that at the time of framing of charges no detailed reasons were required, yet the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the Court must still be satisfied that there exists a prima facie case for framing charges and that the Court is not to act as a mouth-piece or spokesman of the prosecution and charges cannot be framed in a routine manner. In view of this opinion of the Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge examined the material on record and came to the conclusion that since the only entrance to the room in the occupation of the respondent No.2 was through the portion in the occupation of the present petitioner, there was no question of criminal tress- pass inasmuch as the petitioner was justified in entering the premises of the complainant in order to access the room in his possession. Unfortunately, I find that this order proceeded on the premise that, as per the allegations, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 merely entered the portion in the occupation of the petitioner to have access to the room which was in the possession of respondent No.2. From the allegations available on record, this is not what is borne out. The allegations are that the respondents 2 to 5 having entered the premises squatted there and, what is more, they started throwing the articles belonging to the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not notice this fact. He also did not notice the statement of Rajinder Babbar who is a neighbour residing at F-188 in the same area, who has corroborated the allegations made out by the petitioner/complainant with regard to the forcible entry as well as the throwing out of the articles belonging to the petitioner/complainant.