1. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 24.4.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jodhpur (for short, "the trial" hereinafter in Criminal Case No. 475/2006, whereby the trial framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned and the Challan papers.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the tenant in the disputed premises and, therefore, no offence under Section 447 IPC is made out. So far as the offence under Section 427 IPC is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the extension raised on the first floor (roof) of the premises is not of a permanent nature and, therefore, no offence of mischief also is made out. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. & ors., 2006(2) WLC (SC) Criminal 253 ; and two decisions of this in Dhirendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2007(2) R.C.C. 565 and Smt. Supyar Bai v. Smt. Gordhan Bai through her Legal Representatives, 1992(1) WLC (Raj.) 590 .

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant submit that from the material available on record prima facie there is a ground to presume that the petitioners committed the offences noticed above, for which the charges have been framed. It is contended that though the petitioners are the tenants in the premises by a lease deed dated 20.9.1996, but the lease deed, in clear terms, provides that the first floor area has not been included in the tenancy of the petitioners as the clause in the lease deed, in clear terms, provides that lessor reserves the first floor area for his own use and, thus, the area, to which the petitioners trespassed, was exclusive in the possession of the complainant and not that of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners committed the criminal trespass and damaged the property of the complainant by putting iron angles and raising the structure and as such they committed the offence of mischief. Learned counsel for the complainant has invited my attention to the statements of Manju Choudhary, Dr. Prithvi Singh and Prahlad Singh recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code, as also the lease deed dated 29.9.1996 executed by the complainant with regard to the disputed premises, which also provides that the lessee will not make any structural alteration or addition in the building without written permission of the lessor. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., 1999 Cri.L.J. 4325 ; Kamala Devi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2002 is Cr.L.R. (SC) 67 ; Mohd. Akbar Dar & Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1548 ; Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari & ors., 2002(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 85 : AIR 1990 SC 121 ; State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, 1977 Cr.L.R. (SC) 375 ; and the decisions of this in Chiman Jagwani v. Union of India, 2002 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 35 ; Bhagirath v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (2) RCD 649 ; Shera Ram v. The State of Rajasthan, 2004(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 580 ; and Umesh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2003(3) R.Cr.D. 142 (Raj.) .

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties; carefully gone through the Challan papers including the lease deed which is a part of the record of the trial .

6. In M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (supra) observed that it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency of business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies