The main legal point established is that the intention to commit an offence or intimidate, insult, or annoy is necessary to constitute criminal trespass under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed our quashing the F.I.R. under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that Principal of the Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agriculture University Extension Education Institute, Nilokheri, lodged as F.I.R. against the petitioners for criminal trespass on the allegation that they installed an idol of Lord Hanuman Ji in the University campus and caused hindrance to various teachers and students. Petitioner No. 1 is a Senior Lecturer/Vice Principal in the Extension Education Institute, Nilokheri, of the Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar and petitioner No. 2 is an Assistant Treasury Officer at Nilokheri. It is averred by the petitioners that on July 5, 1994 the petitioners wanted to perform Pooja of Lord Hanuman Ji and for that purpose they installed the idol of the said deity in the University campus. The religious ceremonies were performed at the make-shift temporary temple and after the conclusion of the religious ceremonies in about 5/6 days, the idol of Hanuman Ji was removed. However, the Principal of the Extension Education Institute of the aforesaid University lodged the F.I.R. on July 6, 1994, stating therein that the petitioners had unauthorized by constructed the temple and were creating problems for the residents of the colony, which may lead to law and order problem.

3. Mr. Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that no permanent structure of the temple was constructed. In fact, it was only make-shift temple in order to perform Pooja of Lord Hanuman Ji, and after the religious ceremonies were over, the idol of Lord Hanuman Ji was removed. He further contends that there was no intention to commit the offence of criminal trespass. He relies upon Sushil Ansal v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 479.

4. In the aforesaid authority it has been held that where the complaint does not disclose that the accused had intention to commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy, then the ingredients of Section 447, Indian Penal Code, are not attracted. In the present case, a perusal of the F.I.R. shows that there was no attempt to intimidate or insult or annoy any person. It was a simple religious ceremony, which was performed by the petitioners in make- shift temple. The idol of Hanuman Ji was removed after the ceremony was over. For this religious ceremony, the petitioners cannot be allowed to face the trial. The filing of the F.I.R. seems to be motivated and the same is liable to be quashed as the ingredients of Section 447, Indian Penal Code, are not fulfilled.

5. Consequently, I quash the F.I.R. dated July 5, 1994 (Annexure P1), Police Station Bhutana, District Karnal, and all the proceedings undertaken in pursuance of the lodging of the F.I.R. as it is an abuse of the process of law. Orders accordingly.