Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CRM-25216 of 2019 Through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant- petitioner has sought permission to place on record final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. as Annexure P-4.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Copy of final report under Section 173(2) ( Cr.P.C. is taken on record as (Annexure P-4).

CRM-M-2125 of 2015 Complainant, through petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has assailed judgment dated 04.11.2014, whereby revisional Court, setting aside order of the trial Court dated 16.05.2014, chargesheeting respondents No.2 1 of 6 CRM-M-2125 of 2015 (O&M) to 12 (hereinafter referred to as "private respondents") under Section 452 IPC, besides other Sections of the IPC, remanded case to the trial Court for fresh decision.

After investigating the matter, police filed final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. against private respondents under Sections 341, 323, 325, 325, 506, 201, 148 and 149 IPC. Pursuant thereto, trial Court finding a prima facie case, chargesheeted them under Sections 148, 452, 149, 325, 506, 201, 427 and 149 IPC vide order dated 16.05.2014.

Being aggrieved, private respondents approached the revisional Court, who vide impugned order dated 04.11.2014, setting aside the aforesaid order of the trial Court, remanded the case to trial Court to take 2 of 6 CRM-M-2125 of 2015 (O&M) fresh decision as to whether private respondents were liable to be chargesheeted under Section 452 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant inter alia contends that words "house trespass" used in Section 452 IPC cannot be restricted to its literal meaning, rather it has a wide definition. "House trespass" not only includes a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, but also includes office and police station. Private respondents caused injuries to uncle of the petitioner, trespassing his tea stall. Thus, they were rightly charge-sheeted by the trial Court under Section 452 IPC. In support of his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance on Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2014(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 129 (S.C.) and State of Karnataka, by Cantonment Railway P.S. v. Richard @ Aruldas and another, 2008(3) ILR (Karnataka) 1352.

In Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 452 IPC does not suggest that the crime should be committed in the house only. In that case, accused had trespassed the office of the complainant. Treating it as a private place of the complainant, accused was held liable to be charge-sheeted and convicted under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC.

In Richard @ Aruldas and another (supra), Karnataka High Court held that even for a crime committed in a police station, accused should be charge-sheeted under Section 452 IPC.