Mumtaz Malik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Mumtaz Malik vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 04, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042987

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1042987
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Feb 04, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mumtaz Malik

Advocate Shri. A. Usmani

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....passed by learned ix additional sessions judge, bhopal in criminal revision no.441/2009 arising out of the order dated 27.6.2009 passed by learned judicial magistrate firs.class, bhopal in r.t.no.10177/2007 whereby the offence punishable under section 452 of ipc alongwith sections 294, 323 and 506 of ipc has been framed. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the fir the complainant was beaten by slaps and fists in his shop. an fir was registered and challan was filed for offence punishable under sections 294, 323 and 506 of ipc but the learned trial court has framed the charge for offence punishable under section 452 of ipc also. at the time of incident, no weapon is said to have been used by the accused. section 452 is reproduced as under:- section 452. house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint: whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.and shall also be liable to fine. on perusal of aforementioned provisions, it is clear that pre-requisite for framing a charge of offence punishable under section 452 of ipc is preparation to cause hurt or injury which involves use of any substance as weapon because house-trespass in the absence of any preparation to cause hurt is punishable under section 451 of ipc, therefore the offence punishable under section 452 of ipc cannot be framed merely on the ground that some injury was caused to the victim. the injury should have been caused by use of any substance as weapon. in the absence of use of any substance is an offence punishable under section 451 of ipc. therefore the trial court has not justified in framing the charge under section 452 of ipc. the charge framed.....

Full Judgment

M.Cr.C.No.6769/2010 4.2.2013 Shri A.

Usmani, counsel for the petitioner.

Smt.

Pratibha Mishra, PL for the State.

Arguments heard.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2010 passed by learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.441/2009 arising out of the order dated 27.6.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Bhopal in R.T.No.10177/2007 whereby the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC alongwith Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC has been framed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the FIR the complainant was beaten by slaps and fists in his shop.

An FIR was registered and challan was filed for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC but the learned trial Court has framed the charge for offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC also.

At the time of incident, no weapon is said to have been used by the accused.

Section 452 is reproduced as under:- Section 452.

House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint: Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven yeaRs.and shall also be liable to fine.

On perusal of aforementioned provisions, it is clear that pre-requisite for framing a charge of offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC is preparation to cause hurt or injury which involves use of any substance as weapon because house-trespass in the absence of any preparation to cause hurt is punishable under Section 451 of IPC, therefore the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC cannot be framed merely on the ground that some injury was caused to the victim.

The injury should have been caused by use of any substance as weapon.

In the absence of use of any substance is an offence punishable under Section 451 of IPC.

Therefore the trial Court has not justified in framing the charge under Section 452 of IPC.

The charge framed for offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC is hereby quashed.

Trial Court is directed to amend the charge by framing the charge for the offence punishable under Section 451 of IPC.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

(A.K.Sharma) JUDGE ravi

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Mumtaz Malik vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education