Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure takes exception to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shimla on 2.11.2016 whereby he reversed the judgment passed by the learned trial Magistrate. The petitioners are accused in a complaint filed by the respondent under section 200 Cr.P.C. read with sections 351, 452, 441, 434 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Learned trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint. However, the said judgment has been reversed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision filed by the respondent against the said judgment.
(3.) A perusal of the judgment would show that while reversing the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge has not cared to discuss the testimony of the witnesses or even record clear, convincing and cogent reasons for arriving at its conclusion. This would be clearly evident from the perusal of paragraphs No. 11 to 13 of the judgment, which read thus: "11. Thus, from a careful examination of the entire case record, case of the complainant is manifestly to the effect that on 12.7.2008, at about 7.10 am, accused prsons after having made preparation for casuing hurt committed house trespass by making their forceful entry to the house of the complainant. After recording the preliminary evidence, as many as three witnesses Sh. Sanjay Thakur (CW-1), Sh. Lalit Verma (CW-2) and Sh. Jitender (CW-3), the learned trial court dismissed the complaint vide order dated 27.1.2009. As against this, revision petition No. 27-S/10 of 013/09 was assailed before this Court, whereby vide order dated 27.9.2014, my learned Predecessor held that prima facie accused persons after committing offence punishable under sections 451 and 506 IPC. On this, learned trial court below issued the processes against the accused persons. The accused persons put in their appearance before the court. The pre charge evidence was recorded. Again, learned trial court below vide impugned order discharged the accused persons. 12. Under both the provisions i.e. under sections 239 and 245 Cr.P.C. wherein, it is provided that the Magistrate, for the reasons to be recorded, that no case made against the accused if unrebutted, would warrant this and offence, the Magistrate shall discharge him. Therefore, from the underlined provisions of section 239 and 245, it is clear that whether the case is effected or otherwise than a false report, for discharging the accused, the Magistrate is mandatorily required the record the reasons so. It is with object to unable the superior court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which the trial judge has held that there is or is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Though, trial court below has assigned the reason in para Nos. 11 and 12 of the judgment by citing a particular line appeared in the examination. It is settled law that the statement of a witness cannot be read with in a piecemeal manner. The impugned order, discharging the accused persons from the commission of alleged offences are not warranted under the law. The learned trial court below laid down much emphasis that a civil suit is pending between the parties. Mere pendency of civil suit between the parties cannot abdicate the court from its duty to discharge the accused from the commission of alleged offences. The trend of examination-in-chief as well as crossexamination prima facie shows that the accused persons committed the offences punishable under sections 451 and 506 IPC. 13. For the foregoing reasons, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I arrive at an inescapable conclusion that the ld. Trial court below has committed apparent irregularity or illegality while passing order dated 3.5.2016. Consequently, the order of the ld. Trial court below is quashed and set aside. Hence, the point No.1 answered in positive.";