Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. DOSHI, J
ANIL SATYARTHI RAINA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 13274 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. JAY M THAKKAR
For the Respondents: MR SHAILESH C SHARMA, MR SOHAM JOSHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Court quashed FIR due to a lack of foundational elements for the alleged offences, citing lawful presence and absence of intentional insults.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - The petition is filed to quash FIR under Sections 448, 504, 506(2) of IPC for house trespass, insult, and criminal intimidation - The presence of the petitioner in the disputed property is lawful as per the prior owner's permission, hence house trespass is not established - Offences under Sections 504 and 506(2) of IPC are also not made out due to lack of intentional insult or threat - Petition allowed to quash FIR. (Paras 1-9)
Facts of the case:
The FIR was filed due to alleged threats by the petitioner while residing in the disputed property, which was sold to the complainant by a previous owner. The petitioner’s claims of lawful residence were supported by prior legal proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found no criminal trespass or insult occurring, rendering the continuation of proceedings futile.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute the offences as claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court used powers under Section 482 to quash the FIR due to lack of essential ingredients of offences as detailed in the complaint.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks to quash fir based on property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court analyzes definitions and elements of trespass offenses. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. fir elements lack substantial evidence for house trespass. (Para 5) |
| 4. court outlines conditions for quashing fir and necessity of substantial allegations. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. the petition is allowed, quashing the fir. (Para 9) |
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 118 of 2019 registered with Vidhyanagar Police Station, Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased disputed property from accused No.2 Pareshbhai Hasmukhlal Thakkar. According to the FIR, when the complainant went to the disputed property, he found that the petitioner was living in the disputed property and the accused No.2 Pareshbhai Thakkar told him that the petitioner is his friend and kindly permit him to live for sometime. That on 28.11.2019, when the officers from the HDFC Finance along with the complainant went to see that who is living in the disputed property, the petitioner passed threat for dire consequences. As such, the FIR was lodged.
3. During the argument, learned advocate Mr. Jay Thakkar submits that two suits were filed by the petitioner, however, both of them turned against him and the order passed by the competent civil Court has not been carried further before higher forum by the petitioner. It is also submitted that DRT proceedings were taken place and during the DRT proceedings, peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property has been handed over to the complainant. It is further submitted that as of now, the complainant is in peaceful and vacant possession of the disputed property.
4. The offence u/s 448 of the IPC is in regards to punishment of house trespass. Section 442 of the IPC defines house trespass, which reads as under:-
“442. House trespass.—
Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house-trespass”.
Explanation.—The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser’s body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.”
5. Criminal trespass is stated to have been committed by accused if he entered into or remained in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house-trespass”. In the present case, the disputed property was originally belonged to accused No.2 Pareshbhai Thakkar and later on, the same has been purchased by the complainant and when the complainant visited the disputed property, he found that the petitioner was staying there. Former owner Pareshbhai Thakkar said that the petitioner was his friend and has been permitted by him to live in the disputed property. Under the circumstances, what could be noticed that presence of the petitioner in the disputed property was not illegal. Constitution of offence of house trespass would happen only if trespasser intends to annoy or to do something illegal. In the present case, as noted earlier, subsequently in the DRT proceedings, the petitioner has already handed over possession of the disputed property back to the complainant. Thus, according to this Court, offence u/s 448 of the IPC is not made out since house trespass is not established.
6. As far as offences u/s 504 and 506(2) of the IPC is concerned, bare reading of the FIR does not disclose that the complainant was intentionally insulted with an intent to provoke breach of peace, wh
