RAHUL AGRAWAL Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision filed on behalf of the accused/applicant Rahul Agrawal is directed against order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katni, in Criminal Case No. 6478/2006, whereby the accused was discharged of offences under Sections 295 and 427 of the IPC but a charge of offences punishable under Sections 294 and 298 of the IPC was framed against him.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are as follows: On 07.12.2006 at 11.00 p.m., first informant Anoop Singhai lodged an FIR in P.S. -Kotwali, Katni to the effect that the first informant is a follower of Jain Religion. He regularly visits Parshwanath Digamber Jain Mandir (Glass Temple), for offering prayers. Accused/applicant Rahul Agrawal is tenant of Parswanath Digamber Jain Mandir and runs a shop in the tenanted premises, in the name and style of M/s. Punjab Stores. Digamber Jain Mandir is situated on the first floor above the tenanted shop. The applicant has been causing damage to the roof and wall of the tenanted shop. In this regard a case has been instituted in the Court and applicant Rahul Agrawal has been injuncted by the Court from causing damage to the shop.

(3.) THE order framing charge as aforesaid, has been assailed on behalf of the applicant/accused mainly on the grounds that Parswanath Digamber Jain Mandir, through Secretary Santosh Kumar Jain has filed a civil suit for eviction of the applicant from the tenanted shop. That civil suit was still pending on the date of incident. It has further been submitted that the furniture installed in the shop had become old and was infected by termite; therefore, on 23.11.2006, applicant was removing the old furniture from the shop. He was not causing any damage to the shop and was not raising any new construction. However, on 24.11.2006, the plaintiff Parshwanath Digamber Jain Mandir moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC in the pending civil suit expressing apprehension that the applicant was sub -letting the shop. The applicant clarified that he did not intend to sublet the shop but was only removing furniture. Subsequently, on 24.11.2006 at around 10.30 pm, he received a phone call from a Police Officer, who used abusive and filthy language calling the applicant immediately to the police station. The applicant went to the police station on 25.11.2006 at around 11.00 a.m. The police officer enquired from the applicant regarding his activities in the temple premises. The applicant explained his position to the Police Officer. Subsequently, A direction was made by the Civil Court for local inspection of the tenanted shop in accordance with the provisions of Order 26 rule 9 of the CPC; however, the Commissioners submitted a report that the spot inspection could not be conducted because the Commissioners had received threats from local M.L.A., who belonged to Jain Community and other members of the community. Thereafter, 10 frivolous complaints were filed against the applicant in the police station.