Intent to outrage modesty is essential for criminal liability under IPC Section 354; mere entry into property without exclusive possession does not constitute criminal trespass.

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged FIR No.84/2021 for offences under Section 354 and 448 of IPC registered with Police Staton, M. R. Gunj, Srinagar.

2) As per prosecution case, on 25.08.2021, while the complainant was sitting at her home, petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad Shah, who happens to be her brother-in-law, along with his wife, petitioner Shaheena and his son, petitioner Tawseeq Mushtaq Shah, came over there and knocked the door of her house. It is further alleged that the complainant was given a beating by the petitioners and they also broke open the lock of her another room. Prior to it, in the month of June, petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad Shah and his wife along with police officials had come to the home of the complainant and questioned her. It is also alleged that on 25.08.2021, the petitioners also hurled abuses upon the complainant, whereafter she contacted her husband on telephone. However, she was dragged by petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad Shah and his wife out of her house and in the meantime, her husband came on spot and he objected to it, as a result of which she was set free by the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners attacked her husband and gave a beating to him and when she tried to rescue him she was again dragged, as a result of which her headgear fell down, which amounted to outraging of her modesty.

3) It seems that the impugned FIR came to be registered on the basis of the order passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, PT&E, Srinagar, passed on 06.10.2021.

4) The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that there is a civil dispute going on between the parties and the complainant has lodged the impugned FIR only with a view to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners. It has been further contended that the allegations made in the impugned FIR do not constitute any offence against the petitioners. It has been submitted that the petitioners and the private respondents are co-owners and co-sharers of the property situated at Khankai Moulla, Kalashpora, Srinagar, which was purchased jointly by petitioner No.1 and his real brother, respondent No.5, way back in the year 1995. It has been further contended that 1/3rd of the said joint property was sold by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 to their brother, namely, Mehmood Ahmad Shah.

5) According to the petitioners, they are presently putting up at a different place and had kept their share in the aforesaid property under lock and key but the private respondents, taking advantage of their absence from the property in question, tried to dispossess them by breaking open the locks which prompted petitioner No.1 to file a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the private respondents before the Court of learned 2^nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, who, vide order dated 04.12.2015, has directed the parties the parties to maintain status quo .

6) It has been submitted that despite the aforesaid order of status quo passed by the civil court, the private respondents tried to violate the same which compelled petitioner No.1 to approach the civil court seeking implementation of the status quo order through police agency. Accordingly, another order dated 25.05.2016 came to passed by the learned Civil Court in the said application.

7) It has been further stated that on 05.08.2021, when petitioner No.2 went to the disputed property, she was mercilessly beaten by the private respondents, which resulted in lodging of FIR No.70/2021 for offences under Section 354 and 323 of IPC. It is the contention of the petitioners that the private respondents, in order to wreak vengeance upon them, have lodged the impugned FIR which is absolutely