GURJANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellianeous petition is directed against the order dated October 8, 1990, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sadulsahar, by which the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioners under Sections 148, 452, 323, 325/149 IPC.

(2.) JAGROOP Singh, on April 19, 1987, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Sadulsahar (district Sri Ganganagar) against Gurjant Singh, Hakam Singh and Lala Ram and ten -fifteen other persons. It was alleged in the report that he is a tenant in shop No. 23 for the last three years and the shop belongs to Rewat Ram. He is paying rent to Rewat Ram, but he is not giving any receipt and wanted to get the shop vacated. Today, at about 12.30 p.m., when he was sitting in his shop alongwith Basant Singh, Dooda Singh and Hakam, at that time, accused Rewat Ram, Mangi Lal and Saheb Ram alongwith ten -fifteen other persons out of whom four were armed with 12 bore guns, two were armed with 12 bore pistols and the remaining were carrying lathis, Gandasi etc., came in a jeep, entered in the shop and gave beatings to him and by making fire, threatened the other persons not to interfere; threw the goods out of the shop and took away Rs. 1000/ - in cash and one cash box. The police registered the case under Sections 382, 448, 323, 147, 148, 149 and 336 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arma Act. The police after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the accused Om Prakash, Harji Ram, Rewat Ram, Gurjant Singh, Hakam Singh and Lala Ram. The learned Magistrate, therefore, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused persons, by his order dated October 8, 1990, framed the charges under Sections 148, 452, 323 and 325/149 IPC, against the accused -petitioners. It is against this order that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners do not find place in the First Information Report and no witness except Kishan Lal, implicates the petitioners, who was examined after sometime and his last contention is that the ingredients of the charges framed against the petitioners are not complete. He, therefore, prayed that the order dated October 8, 1990, passed by the learned Magistrate, framing the charges against the petitioners may be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order framing the charges against the petitioners, passed by the learned Magistrate.