GOVERDHAN BARDHAR,J. - (1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 05.02.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu whereby he has framed the charges for offences under Sections 436, 447/34 IPC against the petitioners.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners argued that it is settled legal position that an ordinary thatched roof/ shed resting on bamboos or pillars or bricks having no doors cannot be treated as building within the meaning of the term used under Section 436 I.P.C. As per the case of the prosecution, there was a thatched roof allegedly raised by the complainant, open from all sides and undisputedly without any walls or door; simply a cot was lying there with no kitchen or any dwelling and/or residential unit. Therefore offence under Section 436 I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioners. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Babulal and Anr. v. State [AIR (39) 1952 Allahabad 146].
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor supports the impugned order of framing of charge passed by the learned trial court.;