Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.Nagaprasanna, J.
Rajesh Velu – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3531 of 2021
Decided On : 01-09-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND INTIMIDATION - IPC SECTIONS 441, 447, 506, 34 - The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 441, 447, and 506 of the IPC, emphasizing that criminal trespass requires intent to commit an offense or to intimidate. The court found that the allegations against the petitioner lacked sufficient evidence of intent or criminal act, leading to the conclusion that the charges were based on personal vendetta rather than legal grounds. The court's decision to quash the proceedings was influenced by the absence of a prima facie case against the petitioner and the presence of multiple FIRs indicating a pattern of harassment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No. 7, challenged the proceedings in a case arising from a complaint by the 2nd respondent, alleging theft and criminal trespass related to household items during a marital dispute. The petitioner contended that the allegations were baseless and motivated by personal animosity stemming from the complainant's suspicion of an illicit relationship between the petitioner and the complainant's wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of criminal trespass and intimidation were not substantiated by evidence. It noted that the complainant's claims were vague and lacked specific details, such as the date of the alleged theft. The court concluded that the charges were primarily driven by personal grievances rather than legitimate legal concerns.
Issues: Whether the allegations of criminal trespass and intimidation against the petitioner were substantiated by sufficient evidence and whether the proceedings were initiated with mala fide intent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offense of criminal trespass under Section 447 of the IPC, there must be intent to commit an offense or to intimidate, which was not present in this case. The court also emphasized that mere entry into property does not constitute criminal trespass without the requisite intent. The allegations were deemed to be loosely laid and motivated by personal vendetta.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.51315 of 2021, stating that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner/accused No.7 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.51315 of 2021 which arose out of Crime No.638 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Ss. 447 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are said to know each other for close to 15 years. The families of both the persons are said to be close friends. It is averred that in the year 2013 the 2nd respondent after his marriage had shifted to the house of the petitioner at Bangalore and had been a tenant from 2013 to 2018. It is again averred that they had cordial relationship between themselves. It appears that during the year 2018 the relationship between the complainant and his wife had floundered. The wife had registered certain cases against the 2nd respondent/husband. The first of the cases sought to be registered was on 20/5/2019 by the wife of the 2nd respondent against him which ends up in issuance of non-cognizable report in N.C.R.No.431 of 2019 asking the parties to settle the dispute. After the said attempt to register the crime against him, the 2nd respondent files M.C.No.3274 of 2019 seeking dissolution of marriage. After filing of matrimonial case, the 2nd respondent then files a complaint before the Banaswadi Police contending that there has been theft of his household articles, property, original documents and other things. The averment is that in this case as well non-cognizable report was registered in N.C.R.No.577 of 2019 with the settlement that the accused therein had to return the articles.
3. It appears that the accused had handed over the documents related to the house of the complainant at Chennai and the allegation is that all the things were not returned. Based upon this, after about three months, a private complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent against seven accused for offences punishable under Ss. 427, 506, 378, 447 r/w 34 of the IPC. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.7. The learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation which results in registration of FIR in Crime No.638 of 2019 for the afore-quoted offences. The registration of the crime leads to investigation and the investigation results in filing of a charge sheet by the Police not for all the offences so alleged but for offences punishable under Ss. 447, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. Therefore, the consideration in the case at hand would be qua filing of the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner was maintained as accused No.7 in the charge sheet as well. Filing of the charge sheet is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Heard Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner, Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R.M. Annamalai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
5. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner would vehemently contend that the 2nd respondent has dispute with his wife. He suspected that the petitioner is the reason for the said dispute. It is his suspicion that the petitioner is his wife's paramour and, therefore, seeks to register a complaint on a particular day that articles in the house which was tenanted by the 2nd respondent from the hands of the petitioner had been stolen in connivance with his wife. Therefore, she would submit that the 2nd respondent is seeking to wreck vengeance as a counter blast. Suspicion that is generated is with regard to the relationship between the wife of the 2nd respondent and the petitioner. She would further contend that the offence under Sec. 447 or Sec. 506 of the IPC is not even present in the complaint, as the house equally belongs to the wife of the complainant as it belongs to the complainant. Therefore, there cannot be a trespass into her own house. The complaint though narrates several articles missing as describ
The court quashed criminal proceedings for trespass and intimidation, highlighting that allegations lacked required intent and could be deemed malicious, thereby abusing the legal process.
Vague or farfetched allegations should be scrutinized, and if found frivolous, they should be quashed. Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC should not be loosely invoked without proper justification.
The court established that allegations in the FIR did not constitute extortion or criminal intimidation, emphasizing the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences.
Allegations must meet specific legal criteria to support criminal charges; vague claims under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC should lead to quashing of FIR and proceedings.
FIR quashed as allegations fail prima facie to constitute Sections 451,447,506 IPC offences in civil property possession dispute lacking trespass intent and intimidation alarm, preventing abuse of pr....
The judgment establishes that mere abusive language does not suffice to constitute an intentional insult under Section 504 IPC, and that the essential elements of criminal intimidation must be clearl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
