SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the respondent complainant. Perused the material available on record.
(2.) These two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 are directed against the order dated 20.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in two separate revisions preferred by the accused petitioners against the order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case NO.484/2014 whereby, charges were framed against the petitioner Ritu @ Rita for the offence under Section 342 read with Section 120B IPC and against the petitioner Pawan Kumar for the offences under Sections 497, 456, 342 and 120B IPC.
(3.) Shri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioners advanced the following contentions for challenging the impugned orders: (1) that the essential ingredients of the offence of lurking house-trespass at night are made out from the admitted prosecution allegation so as to justify the order framing charge for the offence under Section 456 IPC, (2) that the complainant was having access to a second door from the bed where he was allegedly confined in and thus, the charge under Section 342 read with Section 120-B IPC is made out, and (3) that there is no allegation of the complainant Shivraj Ojha that he actually saw the two petitioners indulging in sexual intercourse and hence, the charge under Section 497 IPC cannot be sustained.;