RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution is that on 20-2-1999 at about 10.00 a.m. when the petitioner along with his father and other family members was present in his house. Dalpat Sarpanch, Ram Niwas, Ranbir, Ravinder, Raj Karan, Balbir, Surender, Shiv Lal, Vinod and Leela came and started demolishing 5 feet boundary wall. They were restrained from doing so but they did not pay any heed. The assailants also stated that they will put the house of the petitioner on fire and after this, the petitioner will be thrown in the fire. Dalpat Singh put his chhan on fire adjoining to his residential house. The petitioner along with his family members ran away from the spot due to the fire. On seeing the fire many people of the village collected there and on seeing the persons, the assailants ran away from the spot. The buffaloes tied near the chhan were saved with great difficulty.

(2.) After investigation report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. was presented before the illaqua magistrate under Sections 147, 148, 506, IPC. Regarding offence under Section 436, I.P.C. it was mentioned that the proceedings under Section 182, Cr. P. C. be initiated against the petitioner as he has put his chhan on fire and has made a false report. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani framed the charge under Sections 147, 148 and 506, I.P.C. against 11 accused persons and the petitioner was charge sheeted under Section 436, I.P.C.

(3.) Shri Baldev Singh, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the order framing the charge against the petitioner under Section 436, I.P.C. is erroneous. He contended that if the report of the petitioner given to the police is found to be false, then the petitioner can be prosecuted under the relevant provision i.e. under Section 182, Cr. P. C. but he cannot be charge-sheeted under Section 436, I.P.C. He further contended that no offence under Section 436, I.P.C. is made out as the chhan does not come under the definition of building. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon Smt. Jashmero v. State of Haryana, (1979) 81 Pun LR 420 .