IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1885 of 2006() ------------------------- CC.180/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. P.ALAVIKUTTY HAJI,PALLICKAL PARAMBA, ASHRAF MANZIL, KALLAI P.O. 2. P.AYISHA, RESIDING -DO- 3. P.THAHIRA,RESIDING -DO- 4. P.ASHRAF, RESIDING -DO- 5. P.JABIR, RESIDING -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. PARPPURATH MOIDEEN, PALLICKAL PARAMBA, DARUL SALAM, KALLAI P.O. 2. THE S I OF POLICE, PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNKAULAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R1 SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN FOR R1 SMT.NISHA BOSE FOR R1 BY P.P.SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1885 of 2006 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed to quash Annexure-1 charge-sheet, filed under Section 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 506(ii) read with Section 149 IPC. 2. According to prosecution on 12.9.2001 petitioners allegedly trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and wrongfully restrained him from entering into the property. They also committed criminal intimidation by showing weapons and this was done for constructing a boundary in the property of the defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there was a civil dispute between petitioners and defacto complainant in respect of the disputed property wherein the trespass was allegedly made. An injunction was granted in O.S.728/2001 by the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode in favour of petitioners whereby defacto complainant was injuncted from trespassing into the place of occurrence. Thereafter, a similar decree was also granted in favour of petitioners. An appeal was filed by defacto complainant against such decree and it was dismissed. The 2 relevant documents are produced in this case including the judgment of the civil case. 4. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioners is that a case of criminal trespass will not lie. The decree of civil court is in favour of petitioners and it was held by the Munsiff Court that the place of occurrence is in possession of the petitioners. The injunction granted by the court prohibits defacto complainant from entering into the property which is in possession of petitioners. The petitioners have every right to prevent defacto complainant from entering into the property and if they asks him not to enter, it cannot be said that they have committed wrongful restraint, or any other offences like Section 506 (ii) or Section 143 etc. are committed. Therefore, charge under Section 447 and 341 will not lie, in the argument. 5. Learned counsel for first respondent submitted that if at all petitioners have a good case, they may approach trial court for discharge. There is a specific allegation that petitioners have trespassed into defacto complainant's property and they were criminally restrained. Therefore, it cannot be said that no offence will lie under Section 447 and 341. 6. On hearing both sides and going through documents 3 made available including the judgment etc. passed by the Munsiff Court, I find that there is a civil dispute between the parties and a decree is passed in favour of petitioners in respect of possession of the disputed property. Though contentions are taken up by petitioners that the decree is passed in respect of the place of occurrence this fact is not disputed by first respondent. It is also relevant to note that there was no bloodshed in the course of incident and none is allegedly injured in the incident. In such circumstances, I can only accept the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners and I am of the view that it will not be just or proper to continue the proceedings against petitioners for offences alleged against them. 7. In the result, the Annexure-I charge-sheet filed against petitioners is quashed. The petitioners shall not be proceeded against based on Annexure-I charge-sheet. Petition is allowed. K.Hema, Judge cms