IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2005

Brahamachari Divyanand

….……..

Revisionist

Versus

State of Uttaranchal and another

………… Respondents

Present:

Mr. Bhuwanesh Joshi, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Shukla,

Advocate for the revisionist.

Mr. Hariom Bhakuni, and Ms. Meena Bohara, brief

holders for the State/respondent No.1.

JUDGMENT

BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral)

A First Information Report was lodged, where it was

alleged that the person, by the name Dayanand, was found

suspiciously inside the premises of the Ashram with a Paatal and a

Torch. It is surprising that after the investigation was completed, a

charge-sheet under Sections 452 and 120B of the Indian Penal

Code was filed only against Dayanand. It is even more surprising

that a charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections

452 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In order to conspire, there

is requirement of atleast two people. Against one, no charge under

Section 120B of I.P.C. could either be framed or tried. In course of

tendering evidence to put home the charge punishable under

Section 452 of I.P.C., none of the prosecution witnesses said that

the accused committed 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 and, accordingly, the

prosecution has failed to establish a charge under Section 452 of

I.P.C. and, in the circumstances, the accused has been acquitted.

Aggrieved thereby the present revision application has been filed.

2

2.

From the records of the case, I have not been able to

locate one single ingredient, which fulfills the requirements of

Section 452 of I.P.C. The revision application is thoroughly

misconceived and the same is dismissed.

3.

Let lower court records be sent back to the court below

alongwith a copy of this order.

(Barin Ghosh, C.J.)

21.09.2012

P. Singh