Forcible entry into a house with the intention to annoy the occupants amounts to criminal trespass under Section 442 IPC, and an order of restoration of possession under Section 456 (1) Cr. P. C. is warranted in such cases.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS in this revision case are brothers. They were convicted under section 448 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, by the XV Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad in C. C. No. 80/1990 on his file. On appeal, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the learned Magistrate, were confirmed by the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Hyderbad, in Criminal appeal No. 194 of 1991. The relief granted under Section 456 (1) Cr. P. C. by the learned Magistrate to the complainant, directing the accused to restore possession of the room which was occupied by them on the date of offence was also confirmed by the lower appellate court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision case is filed.

( 2 ) ON 13-12-1991, this court granted stay of operation of the order passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge directing restoration of possession of the room under Section 456 (1) Cr. P. C. Consequently, the petitioners/accused continued to be in possession of the room in question.

( 3 ) THE complainant (P. W. I) is residing in House no. 11-4-402, Raja Ghat, hyderabad, as tenant of petitioners/a-1 and A. 2. A. 1 is residing in House no. 11-4-375, Bajar Ghat, i. e. , on the back side of the house in which P. W. 1 is residing and A. 2 is a resident of Banjara Hills. Rent Control Case. No. 229 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, filed for eviction of P. W. 1 from the house is question is pending. On 5-7-1989, at about 10. a. m. A. 1 approached the complainant requesting him to permit him to carry out some repairs to the house. The complainant (P. W. I) refused to give permission. After the complainant and his two brothers went out for their work, atabout 12 noon on the same day, in the absence of P. W. I, A. 1 and A. 2 forcibly entered the house of P. W. 1 by opening the doors when the mother (P. W. 2) and sister-in-law (P. W. I) of the complainant were in the house. In spite of the objections and obstructions of P. Ws. 2 and 3, and accused threw away two chairs, one table and a calendar and forcibly occupied a room on the western side of the house of the complainant. They also closed the passage by constructing a wall and opened a door-way on the western side of the said room. The complainant and his brothers returned home late in the night. On 6-7-1989, P. W. I filed a complaint ex. P. 3 at the Police Station, Nampally, and as the police did not take any action, he filed a private complaint.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the complainant four witnesses were examined. P. W. 1 is the complainant, P. W. 2 is his brother. P. W. 3 is his sister-in-law and P. W. 4 is one afzal Khan, a neighbour of P. W. 1.

( 5 ) THE learned trial Magistrate, accepting the evidence adduced by the complainant and relying upon Ex. P-1, certified copy of the petition in R. C. C 229/88 and Ex. P-2 sketch annexed to Ex. P-1 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner, as mentioned supra. The appeal filed by the petitioners/ accused was also dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial court.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner (accused) contended that both the courts below have erred in placing reliance upon Ex. P-1 petition and Ex. P-2 sketch attached to Ex. P-1, which were not yet proved and marked before the rent Controller. He contended that the police have already inquired into the matter and held that it is a civil dispute, and hence the complaint itself is not maintainable, he also contended that the trial court should have appointed an advocate-Commissioner for making local inspection to find out whether a door was fixed recently, as contended by the complainant. Lastly, he contended that even by accepting the entire case of the complainant, no case is made out warranting conviction under Sec. 448 IPC, as the ingredients required for conviction under Section 448 IPC are not established.

( 7 ) cri