Naseebu Deen and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the orders dated 4.2.2013 (Annexure P-3) and dated 10.7.2012 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in not considering the documents produced by the petitioners at the time of framing of the charges.

In the present case, FIR No. 39 dated 15.2.1995 u/s 454, 380, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short) was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the petitioners. Charges were framed against the petitioners by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.7.2012 (Annexure P-5) u/s 454, 380, 506, 427 IPC. Petitioners had also moved an application for their discharge which was dismissed by the Trial Court and charges were ordered to be framed against them vide the impugned order.

The case of the petitioners was that the property in question was a graveyard and lease deed executed in favour of the complainant by the Punjab Wakf Board was illegal, null and void. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution is that a school had been constructed over the property in dispute. Petitioners had criminally trespassed into the property in dispute by breaking the boundary wall and had committed theft of articles lying therein. Learned Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the allegations levelled by the petitioners as well as the defence taken by the petitioners could be seen only during trial. At the stage of framing of the charges, the Trial Court was only required to see as to whether prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners was made out or not.

The Court of Revision has dismissed the petition vide Annexure P-3 dated 4.2.2013 filed by the petitioners against the order of the Trail Court whereby charges were ordered to be framed against them. Learned Court of Revision, while dismissing the revision petition, held that the charges had been framed against the petitioners on the basis of material available on record. At the stage of framing of the charges, Trial Court was only required to see as to whether there was prima facie evidence on record to proceed against the accused. Statement of the complainant had been recorded wherein specific allegations had been levelled against the petitioners qua commission of criminal trespass into the property of the school by breaking the boundary wall and commission of theft of articles. The iron gate was also broken.

The Trial Court had, thus, rightly ordered the framing of the charges against the petitioners as there was prima facie evidence on record to proceed against them.

No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.