Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19223
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
BALACHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 3830/2018
The court established that entry into a public place does not constitute criminal trespass and clarified the intention required for criminal intimidation under the IPC.
Headnote:
Criminal Trespass - Criminal Offences - IPC Section List - The court concluded that entry into a public place does not constitute criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC and determined that allegations did not meet the threshold for criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, leading to the quashing of proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case concerns charges against the petitioner for criminal trespass and intimidation due to allegations made during an incident at a school office, which was reported by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no basis for criminal trespass as entering the school office did not constitute such an offense and ruled that the allegations of intimidation did not demonstrate intent necessary to establish the offense.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's entry into the school office constituted criminal trespass under IPC Section 447 and if the allegations warranted charges of criminal intimidation under IPC Section 506.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere entry into a public place is not criminal trespass and that without intent to cause alarm or threat, the elements of criminal intimidation are not satisfied.
Final Decision: All proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 519/2013 are quashed.
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 519/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No. 431/2012 of Ayiroor Police Station. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Secs.
447 and 506 IPC . Annexure-B is the FIR and Annexure-D is the final report.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3.The allegation in Annexure-D final report is extracted hereunder :
1 - “ ആആം സസാകക്ഷികആം ഭർതസാവക്ഷിനആം അവകസാശപപ്പെട്ട കടമുറക്ഷി പ്രതക്ഷികക്ക് വസാടകകക്ക് നൽകക്ഷിയക്ഷിരുന്നതക്ക് സആംബനക്ഷിചക്ക് സക്ഷിവക്ഷിൽ കകസാടതക്ഷിയക്ഷിൽ കകസ്സു നടന വരുന്നതക്ഷിലുള്ള വക്ഷികരസാധതസാൽ അധധസാപക്ഷികയസായ 1-ആആം സസാകക്ഷിയുപട സർവവീസക്ക് സആംബനമസായ വക്ഷിവരങ്ങൾ കശഖരക്ഷികണആം എനള്ള ഉകദ്ദേശകതസാടആം കരുതകലസാടആം കൂടക്ഷി 30.10.12 തവീയതക്ഷി പകൽ 11.45 മണക്ഷികക്ക് അയക്ഷിരൂർ വക്ഷികല്ലേജക്ഷിൽ ഇലകമണു കദേശതക്ക് ഇലകമണു MPLP സക്ക് കൂൾ പകട്ടക്ഷിടതക്ഷിപന്റെ ഓഫവീസക്ക് മുറക്ഷിയുപട വടകകക്ഷിഴകക കലപകട്ടക്ഷിൽ നക്ഷിനആം 4 മവീറ്റർ 50 cm പതകപടക്ഷിഞസാറക്ക് മസാറക്ഷിയുആം ടക്ഷി മുറക്ഷിയുപട പതകകക്ഷിഴകക കലപകട്ടക്ഷിൽ നക്ഷിനആം 7 മവീറ്റർ 80 CM വടകക്ക് പടക്ഷിഞസാറുമസാറക്ഷിയ ഭസാഗതക്ക് അതക്ഷിക്രമക്ഷിചക്ക് കയറക്ഷി നക്ഷിന. അകപ്പെസാൾ HM പന്റെ ചസാർജക്ക് ജക്ഷിൽ ഉണസായക്ഷിരുന്ന 2 ആആം സസാകക്ഷികയസാടക്ക് മനഷധസാവകസാശ കമവീഷൻ പമമ്പറസാപണനആം പറഞക്ക് 1-ആആം സസാകക്ഷിയുപട service details ആവശധപപ്പെട ആയതക്ക് പകസാടകസാൻ വക്ഷിസമതക്ഷിച 2-ആആം സസാകക്ഷികയസാടക്ക് കയർതക്ക് സആംസസാരക്ഷിച ഭവീഷണക്ഷിപപ്പെടതക്ഷിയ സമയആം ബഹളആം കകട്ടക്ക് സ്ഥലതക്ക് വന്ന 1-ആആം സസാകക്ഷികയസാടക്ക് പ്രതക്ഷി "നക്ഷിപന്റെ എല്ലേസാ സർവവീസക്ക് details ഉആം ഞസാൻ എവക്ഷിപട നക്ഷിനആം എടകസാൻ പറ്റുകമസാ അവക്ഷിപട നക്ഷിനആം എടതക്ഷിരക്ഷികപമടവീ" എന്നക്ക് പറഞ്ഞു ഭവീഷണക്ഷിപപ്പെടതക്ഷി പ്രതക്ഷി കമൽ വകുപ്പുകൾ പ്രകസാരമുള്ള കുറ്റആം പചയക്ഷിരക്ഷികന എനള്ളതക്ക്.”
4. Admitted case is that the petitioner entered the office room of a school. It is a public place. I am of the considered opinion that a person entering the office of a school may not amount to criminal trespass to attract the offence under Sec.447 IPC . As far as the offence under Sec.506 is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the same is not attracted in this case. The Apex Court in Manik Taneja and anr. v. State of Karnataka and anr.
[2015 KHC 4046] considered the ingredients of Sec. 506 IPC .
The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder :
- “13. S.506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in S.503 IPC is as under:
- "503. Criminal Intimidation.-- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
- Explanation.-- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
- 14.A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
- 15. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to
