Ashok Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 12 February, 2020
Facts and circumstances of the case in Seema Gupta (supra),
relied upon by learned counsel for private respondents, are altogether
different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, no benefit of the
same can be given to private respondents inasmuch as private respondents.
In that case, the respondents entered into a school, which was not a dwelling
unit. Before the matter came before the Delhi High Court, there were
concurrent findings of two Courts below that school, where respondents had
entered, was not covered under the definition of "house trespass". Careful
perusal of the said judgment shows that concurrent findings of two Courts
below much weighed in the mind of the Delhi High Court. Thus, it did not
feel necessary to deal with the matter for third time in petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
dismissed the petition.