JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

The petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by respondent against him before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Section 447 IPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 05.11.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate on the aforesaid complaint whereby, after taking cognizance of the offence, process has been issued against the petitioner.

2. In the impugned complaint, the respondent-complainant has alleged that she happens to be the daughter of the petitioner/accused and that after the death of Shri Javaid Sheikh, father of the complainant and husband of the petitioner/accused, the property left behind by him devolved upon the petitioner/accused and her three daughters including the respondent herein. It is alleged in the complaint that respondent had three rooms in her possession in one of the properties left behind by her late father and on 05.09.2021 before leaving for Delhi, she locked all these three rooms in presence of her sister Shahala Ali Sheikh with all her belongings inside the room. The respondent is alleged to have informed the SHO concerned about her apprehension that the petitioner/accused may try to dispossess her from these three rooms by breaking open the locks. It has also been alleged in the complaint that on 02.10.2021, respondent/complainant was informed by her sister that the locks of these three rooms have been broken by the petitioner and that she has trespassed into these rooms. Accordingly, the respondent/complainant approached the police for lodging the FIR. However, no action was taken in the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint that ever since the petitioner/accused started questioning the entitlement of respondent/complainant to her share in the property left behind by her father, the respondent sent a legal notice to her through her lawyer but the approach of the petitioner/accused has been aggressive.

3. It appears that upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant, referred the matter for enquiry to the police in terms of Section 202 Cr. P. C. Upon receipt of the report of the enquiry, the learned Magistrate has, in terms of impugned order dated 05.11.2021, observed that offence under Section 447 IPC is, prima facie, made out against the petitioner/accused and, as such, process was issued against her.

4. The petitioner has challenged the complaint and the order of issuance of process against her, primarily, on the ground that one co-sharer of a property cannot be stated to have committed the offence of criminal trespass if he or she enters in the room which is in possession of another co-sharer. It has been further contended that respondent by filing the criminal complaint against the petitioner is only trying to settle a purely civil family dispute by giving it a criminal colour which is not permissible in law.

5. Respondent/complainant on the other hand has contended that she was in possession of three rooms which she had locked and as per the allegations made in the complaint, which are supported by the enquiry report of the police, the petitioner has broken open these locks which clearly makes it as a case of criminal trespass. Therefore, the complaint and the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage without trial of the case.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. As is clear from the contents of the complaint and the documents annexed thereto, there appears to be a dispute relating to inheritance of the property left behind by the predecessor-in-interest of the parties. While respondent/complainant claims that she was in possession of three rooms of the house which she had locked but the petitioner trespassed into these rooms in her absence, the petitioner claims that the property is unpartitioned and being a co-owner, she can walk into any portion o