HP High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Trespass Case Despite Pending Civil Suit

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash an First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent criminal proceedings for alleged criminal trespass (Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code), ruling that the pendency of civil proceedings and the petitioner's claims of ownership are not grounds to halt a criminal case where a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed.

The judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice RakeshKainthla on April 23, 2025, in the case of Babli Thakur versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR registered on April 28, 2016, at Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla. The complaint was filed following a directive from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh concerning the registration of FIRs in forest land encroachment cases.

The FIR alleged that the petitioner, Babli Thakur , had encroached upon 10 Biswas of Forest land in U-257 Kumahali, specifically Khasra Nos. 135/1 and 135/2. It was claimed she constructed a house on 3 Biswas of Khasra No. 135/2 and encroached upon 7 Biswas of Khasra No. 135/1. Despite being given eight weeks to vacate the land and remove the encroachment, she allegedly failed to do so, leading to the registration of the FIR under Section 447 IPC. Following the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 1, Shimla, framed charges against the petitioner on June 7, 2024.

Petitioner's Challenge

Aggrieved by the FIR, charge sheet, and framing of charges, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking their quashing. Her primary contentions included:

She inherited the land via a Will sanctioned by mutation in 1987.

She disputed the claim that the land was forest land and stated no demarcation was done in her presence.

She had applied for regularization of the land under a government scheme.

Civil eviction proceedings initiated against her resulted in an eviction order in 2016, which was stayed by the High Court in a pending writ petition (CWP No. 1348 of 2017).

The criminal proceedings were time-barred as the FIR and witness statements did not specify the date of the offence.

The allegations did not make out a prima facie case under Section 447 IPC as the ingredients of Section 441 were not alleged.

Continuation of criminal proceedings while a civil matter is pending in the High Court constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

State's Response

The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, argued that trespass is a continuing wrong, and therefore, the period of limitation does not apply, citing Section 472 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It was contended that the allegations clearly showed encroachment on government land and the petitioner's continued possession despite notice indicated an intent to annoy the owner, fulfilling the elements of criminal trespass.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

Justice Kainthla carefully considered the submissions and the relevant legal precedents. He referred to the well-established guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal for quashing criminal cases under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court emphasized that at the stage of quashing under Section 482 CrPC, the Court's role is limited. It cannot embark upon an inquiry into the truthfulness or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or conduct a mini-trial, as held in various Supreme Court judgments including Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P. and Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand .

Limited Scope of Quashing Powers

A crucial point highlighted by the Court was that it is not permissible to look into documents or materials filed by the petitioner with the quashing petition that were not part of the material before the Trial Court. The Court must primarily rely on the contents of the FIR and accompanying papers to determine if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out.

The judgment cited MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and numerous other cases reinforcing this principle, stating, "It is not permissible to look into the documents annexed to the petition for quashing the FIR." The Court noted that the petitioner's own admission of seeking regularization of the land indicates she was in possession of government land, which contradicts her claim of no encroachment.

Trespass as a Continuing Offence

Addressing the argument of limitation, the Court concurred with the State that trespass is a continuing wrong. Relying on its own judgment in Jasbir Singh v. State of H.P. , the Court reiterated that under Section 472 CrPC, a fresh period of limitation begins to run every moment the offence continues. Therefore, the charge sheet was not barred by limitation in this case.

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings

The Court firmly rejected the argument that the pendency of civil proceedings for ejectment should bar the continuation of criminal proceedings. Citing a plethora of judgments, including the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah and M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras , the Court underlined that the standards of proof and objectives in civil and criminal cases are entirely different.

"As between the civil and the criminal proceedings the criminal matters should be given precedence," the Court quoted from M.S. Sheriff , adding that the possibility of conflicting decisions is generally not a relevant consideration. The Court also noted that the same set of facts can give rise to both civil and criminal liability, and the mere availability of a civil remedy is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings if a criminal offence is made out, as held in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P.

Decision

Finding that the allegations in the FIR prima facie constituted a cognizable offence and that the grounds raised by the petitioner (challenging the truthfulness of allegations, relying on external documents, pendency of civil suit, limitation in continuing offence) were not sufficient for quashing under Section 482 CrPC at this stage, especially after charges had been framed, the High Court dismissed the petition.

The Court clarified that its observations are confined to the disposal of the quashing petition and will not influence the merits of the case during the trial. The criminal proceedings against Babli Thakur under Section 447 IPC will now continue before the Trial Court.