1408crra213.07.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2007 1. CHITRA W/O SUNIL SAMDEKAR PLOT NO. G/21, FLAT NO. 10/113, GOREPETH .. APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. STATE OF MAH. THRU P.S.O. SITABULDI & 3 ORS. SITABULDI 2. ASHWIN S/O MAGANLAL PAIGWAR 3. ASHISH S/O MANGANLAL PAIGWAR 4. ANURAG S/O MAGANLAL PAIGWAR .. RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. Kotwal, Advocate with Mr. S.S. Israni, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D. D. Yengal, A. P. P. for respondent No.1-State. Mr. D. S. Shrimali, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 14TH AUGUST, 2009. P. C. : 1. Respondents No. 2 to 4 faced trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur (for short, learned trial Judge) under Sections 294, 448 and 506-B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted respondents No. 2 to 4 under Section 448 I.P.C. however, acquitted them of charge under Secs. 294 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is required to be noted that neither the State nor the FIR complainant filed 1408crra213.07.odt 2/4 appeal/revision against order dated 16/12/2006 by which respondents No. 2 to 4 were acquitted of charge under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC. Respondents No. 2 to 4 filed criminal appeal No. 18 of 2007 in the Sessions Court against the order of conviction under Section 448 IPC as aforesaid. The learned Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Nagpur by his judgment and order dated 28/5/2007 acquitted respondents No. 2 to 4 of charge under Section 448 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Against this order the complainant, who had lodged the F.I.R., has filed the present revision application. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides at the admission stage. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that though the learned trial Judge had acquitted respondents No. 2 to 4 for a charge under Section 294 and 506-B of I.P.C., the said acquittal was purely on account of limited point namely the utterances with bad words and abusive language was not in a public place but in the house of the applicant. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the judgment of the learned trial Judge, if perused, goes to show that adequate evidence was placed before the Court to show that respondents No. 2 to 4 had entered the house of complainant for the purposes of using abusive words and intimidation. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 4 may have to be treated as an acquittal on technical ground because the abusive words were uttered in a room and not in the public place. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 4 under Sections 294 and 506-B of I.P.C. will not exonerate respondents No. 2 to 4 from charge under Section 448 1408crra213.07.odt 3/4 of the I.P.C. because the fact that respondents No. 2 to 4 had entered the house of the applicant without her consent is made out. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in acquitting respondents No. 2 to 4 of charge under Section 448 IPC as according to him an entry of respondents No. 2 to 4 in the house of the applicant was made out and that entry was with a view to hurled abuses to the applicant, and therefore, he prays for conviction under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After having considered the point involved, I am inclined to observe that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal is proper. According to the prosecution, respondents No. 2 to 4 entered the house of the applicant with a view to abuse her and i.e. how the case was launched against them for charge under Sections 448, 294 and 506-B of I.P.C. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, if respondents No. 2 to 4 are acquitted of charge under Sections 294 and 506-B of I.P.C., the entry of respondents No. 2 to 4 cannot be considered as an objectionable entry within the meaning of Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code which defines criminal trespass. Once it is observed that respondents No. 2 to 4 are to be acquitted of charge under Section 294, then necessary mensrea to commit criminal trespass is not having been proved by the prosecution. Once the record shows that criminal trespass as understood under Section 441 is not made out, then there is no question of respondents’ committing house trespass as is understood under Section 448 of the Indian 1408crra213.07.odt 4/4 Penal Code. In my view, the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is right and it would not be proper for this Court to interfere in the said view in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision application is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Revision application is dismissed. JUDGE wwl