The court quashed criminal proceedings for trespass and intimidation, highlighting that allegations lacked required intent and could be deemed malicious, thereby abusing the legal process.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No.51315/2021 arising out of Crime No.638/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (for short, ' IPC ').

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel, Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, appearing for the petitioners in Crl. P Nos.40/2024 and 3976/2024 and learned counsel, Sri. Kiran B.Y., appearing for the petitioner in Crl. P No.3913/2024.

3. The proxy counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 seeks time, yet again.

4. This Court on 06.02.2026, owing to the fact that the respondents had gone on seeking adjournment for two years, had passed the following Order:

"Heard the learned Senior counsel, Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, appearing for the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has gone on seeking adjournment after adjournment for the last 3 years.

Therefore, as a last chance, list these matters on 11.02.2026 in 'Admission'.

In the event learned counsel appearing for the respondents would not make submissions, these petitions would be disposed on hearing the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.

Interim order granted earlier, if subsisting in any of these cases, is extended till the next date of hearing."

Even today, a proxy counsel is put forth to seek an adjournment in the matters. Therefore, in the light of the earlier order being a conditional one, the matters are heard.

5. The learned Senior counsel, Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, appearing for the petitioners in Crl. P Nos.40/2024 and 3976/2024 submits that qua accused No.7, this Court had quashed the proceedings in terms of its order dated 01.09.2023. The very complainant had tossed the said order before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has rejected the Special Leave Petition so filed by the complainant against the order of this Court dated 01.09.2023. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6. All the allegations of criminal trespass and criminal intimidation punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC was against accused No.7, whose petition this Court has accepted and quashed the proceedings.

5.1. The learned Senior counsel would further take this Court through the complaint to demonstrate that these petitioners were not even present on the alleged date of the incident, as it was the CCTV footage that led the accused No.7 to be drawn into the web of crime. The present crime is registered only to wreak vengeance against these petitioners by the complainant. Accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 were not even present at the alleged scene of crime. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the wife and her parents, who did reside in the house. The learned Senior counsel submits that the wife and her parents, who were residing in the matrimonial home of the wife, cannot be alleged of trespassing into their own house.

6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would, however, submit that the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC . Therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full long trial.

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

8. The facts that are necessary for consideration of the lis are all captured in the order passed by this Court on 01.09.2023 in Crl.P No.3531/2021. Therefore, it would suffice if the facts narrated therein are paraphrased to the subject order. The order along with the facts and the reasoning in Crl.P. No.3531/2021 reads as follows:

"The petitioner/accused No.7 is