Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 105 (MP)

Laxmandas v. State of M. P.

2005-01-19

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2005
JUDGMENT With the consent of parties matter is heard finally. This petition is filed by the applicant accused under section 482 CrPC challenging part of the order dated 13.12.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Datia whereby charge is framed against the applicant for committing offence under section 451 IPC alongwith other offences. FIR of this incident was lodged on 14.9.2003 at about 8 : 25 a.m. in which the complainant Raghuveerdas has lodged a complaint alleging that at 7 : 00 in the morning he had gone to take morning walk. At that time he received an information that his father Raghuveerdas was assaulted by Laxmandas Vardhan and his brothers. He went to see his father and saw that Laxmandas, Bhagwandas, Jaikumar, Premchand, Mahesh and Pankaj slo Laxmandas had surrounded Raghuveerdas and were abusing him. They had also caused injuries to him. One Laxmandas had a katta in his hand who fired gun shot. Tulsani has also fired a gun shot. One co-accused Pankaj son of Laxmandas, had caused injury by knife which resulted into wound on the hand of the complainant. Raju Kankani, Jaikumar Tulsani were also injured in the case. These persons had caused injuries to Raghuveerdas and other persons. So he lodged the report. He also alleged that these persons had snatched his mobile phone, wrist watch and other articles. A cross case is also registered at the instance of complainant Laxmandas who is accused in the present case. Police, after investigation, filed Challan and the trial Court framed charges against the accused for commission of offence under section 307, 149,452,323,323/148 and 506-B IPC. Contention raised by counsel for applicants is that from the FIR it is clear that there are no allegations against the present accused persons for entering into the house of the complainant and, therefore, charge under section 451 IPC cannot be framed against him. From perusal of record it appears that the present complainant and the accused are landlord and tenant and a dispute is going between them over the possession of the shop which is rented to the applicants. A civil suit between the parties is pending as Civil Suit No. 14-A/00 in the Court of First Civil Judge Class II, Datia in which an injunction order is passed in favour of present applicants restraining the respondent from dispossessing them without taking law in their hands. A civil suit between the parties is pending as Civil Suit No. 14-A/00 in the Court of First Civil Judge Class II, Datia in which an injunction order is passed in favour of present applicants restraining the respondent from dispossessing them without taking law in their hands. Considering these facts that there are no allegations against the applicants for house trespassing in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses I allow this petition in part and set aside the charge framed against the applicants for commission of offence under section 451 IPC and direct that the sessions trial against the accused persons be continued for commission of charges under other sections framed by the Sessions Court. MCrC stands disposed of. Consequently, MCrP 2912/04 stands disposed of.