SAMANDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is complainant in this criminal case, has challenged the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 5, Bharatpur, Camp Deeg whereby while framing the charges for offences under Sec. 147, 148, 307, 307/149 and 323 IPC, learned Addition Sessions Judge has not framed the charge for offence under Sec. 452 IPC. Hence, this petition before us.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had lodged an FIR against the accused respondents and had clearly stated that armed with dangerous weapons, the accused respondents had entered into his house and had caused injuries to him. After the investigation, despite the existence of the site plan, but for the reason best known to the police, police did not submit the charge for offence under Sec. 452 IPC. Therefore, at the time of framing of the charges, the complainant argued before the learned Court below that according to the complainant himself and according to the other witnesses, the accused had entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted the complainant. Therefore, the charge for the offence under Sec. 452 Penal Code is made out. But nonetheless, vide impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge did not frame the charge for offence under Sec. 452 IPC.

(3.) Mr. Dileep Singh Jadoun, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that not only the complainant and the other witnesses have stated about the accused entering into the house, but the site plan also clearly shows that the incident took place inside the house. Therefore, prima facie 1 offence under Sec. 452 Penal Code is clearly made out. Despite, oral and documentary evidence, which is readily available in the challan papers, learned Additional Sessions Judge has not framed the offence under Sec. 452 IPC.