Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Heera Devi W/o Chena Ram and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7694 of 2023
Decided On : 11-02-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. J.K. Suthar
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A., Mr. Ravindra Singh, AGA, Mr. T.R.S.Sodha
Criminal trespass allegations require proof of intent; civil disputes cannot justify criminal prosecutions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 447, 504, 506, 120-B; Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66-E - Challenge to FIR registration on allegations of criminal trespass and other IPC offences - Investigating agency finds charges under Sections 504, 506, and 120-B unsubstantiated; concludes petitioner culpable only under Section 447 - No sufficient evidence to show criminal intent for trespass; civil litigation regarding property rights ongoing - Court emphasizes misuse of criminal proceedings in civil disputes constitutes abuse of process. (Paras 3, 5, 9, 10, 11)
(B) The principle that criminal law cannot be invoked merely for leveraging civil claims or disputes is reiterated, and prosecution must establish requisite intent to support charges of criminal trespass. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenge FIR concerning alleged criminal trespass on disputed land. Investigation reveals lack of evidence for several charges; civil disputes regarding property remain active.
Findings of Court:
FIR quashed due to absence of evidence for criminal intent regarding trespass and ongoing civil litigation.
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings can be sustained in the face of pending civil disputes; definition of intent under Section 447 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution must show intent to disturb possession for criminal trespass allegations; criminal law should not be misused in civil matters.
Result: FIR quashed and proceedings set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to fir registration (Para 1) |
| 2. assessment of investigation findings (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. nature of criminal trespass (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. ongoing civil disputes impact on criminal liability (Para 6) |
| 5. requirement of intent in trespass (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. criminal law cannot address civil disputes (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. conclusion and quashing of fir (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
1. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the very registration of FIR No. 24/2023 at Police Station Pipar City, Jodhpur Rural, which alleges the commission of offences under Sections 447 , 504, 506, and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and Section 66 -E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. At the very threshold of the proceedings, the learned Public Prosecutor placed on record a detailed factual report dated 06.02.2025, as submitted by the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned. A careful perusal of the said report reveals that, following a comprehensive investigation, the allegations under Sections 504 , 506, and 120-B of the IPC, as well as Section 66 -E of the IT Act, were found to be unsubstantiated. The investigation agency, however, has concluded that the petitioner, Heer Devi, is culpable solely under Section 447 of the IPC. The report has been taken on record and considered appropriately.
3. Since the investigating agency itself has not found sufficient material to invoke Sections 504 , 506, and 120-B of the IPC and Section 66 -E of the IT Act, there remains no necessity for this Court to delve into the validity of these charges. However, in the interest of ensuring fairness and preventing misuse of the criminal justice system, it is hereby directed that the prosecution agency shall not revive or reintroduce these offences against the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.
4. I have meticulously considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties and have thoroughly examined the materials placed before this Court. At this juncture, it is imperative to consider the scope and application of Section 447 of the IPC, which prescribes punishment for criminal trespass in the following terms:
"Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
5. The essence of this provision lies in the act of unlawful entry upon another’s property with an intent to commit an offence, intimidate, insult, or annoy the rightful possessor. It is a well-settled legal principle that, in order to establish the offence of criminal trespass, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the complainant was in exclusive possession of the disputed property and that the accused, without lawful justification, forcibly entered with the requisite intent to cause harm, intimidation, or annoyance. Moreover, it is a settled proposition of law that where the question of possession itself is disputed or where civil litigation regarding ownership or occupation is pending, the invocation of Section 447 of the IPC becomes highly contentious. The prosecution must adduce cogent evidence to demonstrate that the entry into the property was accompanied by a criminal intent. Mere physical presence on a disputed property, devoid of such intent, does not suffice to attract the penal consequences under this provision.
6. Upon careful scrutiny of the materials on record, including the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue in a petition filed by the petitioner Heer Devi, it is manifestly evident that civil disputes between the parties are pending before various judicial forums. The Board of Revenue has categorically restrained both parties from alienating or transferring the property in any manner. The land in question is an open land, and litigation regarding its proprietary rights is actively ongoing before competent author
