Ownership and possession negates criminal trespass charges against a person regarding their own property.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner – accused No.1 is calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.44/2023, pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 447 r/w. 34 of the IPC .

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar S., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri K.S.Chandrahasa, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner is said to be an allottee from the hands of NTI Housing Co-operative Society Limited of a particular site, in site No.629. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the said property. Owing to certain disturbance at the hands of respondent No.2, the petitioner institutes a suit in O.S.No.4586/2012 seeking permanent injunction against respondent No.2 and NTI Housing C0operative Society Limited – defendants therein. The suit comes to be dismissed. The dismissal of which is called in question by the petitioner – plaintiff in R.F.A.No.1368/2021. A coordinate bench of this Court sets aside the judgment of dismissal of the suit seeking permanent injunction and remits the matter back to the concerned Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law, in terms of the judgment dated 09.12.2025. In the interregnum i.e., between the date of dismissal of the suit and the allowing of the appeal by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, emerges the said subject incident. On an incident that happens on 22.02.2023, a crime comes to be registered, three days later i.e., on 25.02.2023 for offences punishable under Sections 447 r/w. 34 of the IPC . The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. This Court, prima facie, owing to the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the property, grants an interim order of stay of further investigation in the matter on 08.06.2023. The matter is thus, heard.

5. Sri Sunil Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that he is the lawful owner of a particular site i.e., site No.629, it having been allotted by the NTI Housing Co-operative Society Limited. He is in possession of the property. The suit was erroneously dismissed; the dismissal is now set aside by the co-ordinate bench and the matter is at large before the competent civil Court, yet again. He would submit that the petitioner cannot be hauled for offences under Section 447 of the IPC , which deals with criminal trespass, of his own property.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 complainant submits that the petitioner has lost the suit. He has no valid documents to show that he is in possession of the property. The property belongs to the complainant. Therefore, it is a matter of trial or investigation in the least that the police have to conduct for a criminal trespass.

7. Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant in contending that the investigation must be permitted in the case at hand.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

9. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The petitioner purchases the property from the hands of NTI Housing Co-operative Society, who are in possession of the layout. The sale deed is executed on 05.11.2011 in favour of the petitioner by the Society. Copies of the sale d