SURENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 5.7.2010 passed by learned JMIC, Rewari, whereby charge under Section 380 IPC has been framed against the petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that no offence under Section 380 IPC is made out as the site in question was not a dwelling unit. The reading of FIR does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 380 IPC nor the evidence brought before the trial Court, during the investigation, is sufficient to frame a charge under Section 380 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the local commissioner, prior to the FIR in question, had inspected the place and found that there was no shed at all at the site in question. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners should be discharged and charge framed is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State states that the reading of the FIR makes it clear that the complainant had purchased the plot wherein allegedly the tin shed was constructed, where some material was placed. During investigation, recovery of the stolen tins had been effected from petitioners. As such this Court cannot go into the veracity nor appreciate the evidence collected during the investigation and sufficient evidence is available on the judicial file for framing of the charge. Even the trial Court was not required to give reasons for framing of the charge.