Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v) At this point, several local residents from the colony gathered and rescued him and his wife from the accused person's assault. He immediately dialled 100 (police helpline), and the police vehicle No. 2053 arrived at the spot. However, Mr. Rajneesh Yadav and his associates misbehaved with the police as well, arrogantly saying, "His father is also in the police." The 100-dial police team left without providing any assistance.

4. Record evinces that Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has submitted the charge sheet No. 36 of 2017 on 22.12.2017 arraigning the respondent No. 2 (Rajnish Yadav), under Sections 427, 504 IPC and 3(1)da of SC/ST Act. Learned court has taken cognizance by order dated 16.4.2018 and summoned the accused. Subsequently, charges against the respondent No. 2 has been framed by order dated 1.12.2018. It is apposite to mention here that first informant has moved an application under Section 319 CrPC, which was allowed by order dated 10.1.2020 calling upon Smt. Krishna Devi (respondent No. 3) to face trial along with the co-accused under Sections 427, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)da of SC/ST Act. Charges were framed against her as well, by order dated 26.7.2022, under those sections in which she has been summoned. During pendency of the trial, first informant (applicant herein) has moved an application dated 17.2.2025 under Section 216 CrPC (paper No. 50Ka) to frame additional charge for the offence under Section 452 IPC. The accused have opposed the aforesaid application and filed objection dated 19.3.2025 with an averment that false and fictitious grounds have been mentioned in application dated 17.2.2025 (paper No. 50Ka). The accused came with the case that site map was prepared on the statement of first informant and no material has been collected to substantiate the allegation of house trespass under Section 452 IPC which has been sought to be added as a new charge. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Session Judge, SC/ST Act, Pilibhit has rejected the application under Section 216 CrPC (paper No. 50Ka), vide order dated 5.4.2025, which is under challenge before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the First informant in his statement under Section 161 CrPC has supported the FIR version that accused have barged into his house and vandalized the same. In his deposition, being PW-1, the first informant has unequivocally stated that the accused entered the house and damaged the household articles/goods lying therein. Learned counsel for the applicant has also laid emphasis on the statement of Smt. Rakha Rani, wife of the first informant, who has entered into the witness box and deposed as PW-2. She has supported the case of the house trespass committed by the accused on the date of the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has emphasized the portion of her cross-examination wherein she stated that she had made a statement before the Circle Officer that Krishna Devi, Rajnish, Ajeet Kumar and Kapil Chaudhary came and damaged the household articles/goods inside the house and put a country-made pistol at the temple of her husband. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submits that conjoint reading of the contents of the FIR and the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2, as well as the statement of first informant under Section 161 CrPC, prima facie, a case is made out for the offence under Section 452 IPC. However, the learned trial court has failed to exercise its discretionary power under Section 216 CrPC in right perspective and illegally rejected the application (paper No. 50Ka). Thus, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed to quash the order impugned being illegal, unwarranted under the law and tainted with irregularities, and allow the application (paper No. 50Ka) to add new charge under Section 452 IPC.

7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and upon perusal of the record, it manifests that, prima facie, neither any material has been collected by the Investigating Officer nor at the stage of deposition made by PW-1 and PW-2, any evidence has been adduced, prima facie, to disclose the commission of offence under Section 452 IPC for house trespass after preparation of hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. For ready reference, Section 452 IPC is reproduced hereinbelow:-

15. In this conspectus, as above, I am of the considered view that in the absence of any credible material collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, or any evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial before the court concerned to establish the offence of house trespass after preparation of hurt, assault or wrongly restraint under Section 452 IPC, it would not be befitting to allow the application under Section 216 CrPC to frame new charges against the accused (applicants No. 2 and 3 herein) under Section 452 IPC. Mere averment in the FIR and the deposition made by PW-1 and PW-2 are not, prima facie, sufficient to make out a case of overt act on the part of the present accused to establish the offence of house trespass or summon them for trial of a new charge under Section 452 IPC. Neither has any justifiable ground been made out to pass an order to secure the ends of justice nor is there an abuse of the process of law warranting interference with the order impugned, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. Learned trial court has not committed any illegality, perversity or infirmity in rejecting the application (paper No. 50Ka) filed on behalf of the first informant (applicant herein) under Section 216 CrPC.