THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6859 of 2008 Date: 1.04.2011 Between: Syeed Ali and others …..Petitioners And Smt. Hajeera Begum and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6859 of 2008 ORDER: 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.517 of 2008 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on the ground that the 1st respondent has been resorting to blackmail tactics by registering complaint against the petitioners. 2. The 1st petitioner was the husband of the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner and 1st respondent would appear to have lived for over 30 years as man and his wife. The 1st petitioner, however, divorced the 1st respondent on 21.8.2002. Divorce certificate was issued by the concerned authorities. The 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent got 4 daughters and 2 sons during their wedlock. Even after the divorce, the children continued to live with their father. 3. It would appear that the 1st respondent used to visit the house of the 1st petitioner to meet her children. The 1st petitioner would appear to have graciously allowed the 1st respondent to visit his house to meet their children. 4. As things stood thus, the 1st petitioner married the 2nd petitioner about 8 years after the divorce of the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent. In other words, the 1st petitioner would appear to have married the 2nd petitioner in or around 2010. 5. The 1st respondent later laid a complaint with the police that on 20.2.2008, the petitioners wrongfully confined the 1st respondent, her son and daughter and beat them with a view to force the 1st respondent not to enter into the house of the 1st petitioner. The 1st respondent arrayed her son and daughter as the other two witnesses as receiving injuries in the hands of the petitioners. Incidentally, it may be noticed that the 3rd petitioner is claimed to be a friend of petitioners No.1 and 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the 3rd petitioner is merely a tenant of the 1st petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, the case of the 1st respondent is that the petitioners conjointly confined the 1st respondent as well as her son and daughter in the house of the 1st petitioner by locking the doors and thus committed the offence of wrongful confinement punishable under Section 342 IPC. It is her further case that the petitioners abused the 1st respondent and thus committed the offence under Section 506 IPC by way of criminal intimidation. The 1st respondent also alleged that the accused beat the 1st respondent as well as her son and daughter and thus the 1st petitioner consequently committed the offence under Section 323 IPC. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the charge sheet allegations. The charge sheet allegations inter alia are that the petitioners beat the 1st respondent as well as her son and daughter and that they wrongfully confined the 1st respondent in the house of 1st petitioner. The charge sheet further alleged that the petitioners abused the 1st respondent. What was the exact abuse was not mentioned in the charge sheet. What were the injuries caused to the 1st respondent and her children were not mentioned in the charge sheet. Specific overt acts to the petitioners either for causing hurt or for criminal intimidation have not been attributed in the charge sheet. The room in which the 1st respondent and her children were confined by way of wrongful confinement was also not mentioned in the charge sheet. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the vagueness of the charge sheet and the complaint, the proceedings in C.C.No.517 of 2008 deserves to be quashed. I am not able to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the basis of the allegations made by the 1st respondent that the accused caused hurt, caused criminal intimidation and also committed wrongful confinement, police laid charge sheet. Indeed, at the time of the trial, the prosecution has to establish these allegations clearly, failing which the accused would be entitled to acquittal. At this stage, what is to be examined is the prima-facie of the case. The allegations of the complaint on the basis of which the charge sheet was filed establish a prima-facie case against the petitioners for the offences under Section 323, 342 and 506 IPC. I am not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner for any of these offences. 8. However, curiously the alleged offence occurred in the house of A-1. Nevertheless, the prosecution laid case against the accused for the offence under Section 452 IPC also. Section 452 IPC deals with the punishment for committing house trespass with a view to cause hurt, assault or other activity. The very concept of house trespass arises when one enters the residential premises of another. If one enters one’s own house, it certainly cannot be house trespass. While so, the allegation against the petitioners/accused is that they confined the 1st respondent in their own house, i.e., in the house of the 1st accused. Where the alleged incident occurred in the house of the 1st accused himself, by no stretch of imagination can A-1 to A-3 be held liable for the offence of house trespass punishable under Section 452 IPC. The charge sheet to the extent of the offence under Section 452 IPC is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The petition is allowed inasmuch as the charge sheet is for the offence under Section 452 IPC. The case of the prosecution for the offence under Section 452 IPC against the accused is quashed. The learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad may proceed with the case of the prosecution for the rest of the allegations against the petitioner. Needless to state that the petitioners would be at liberty to take up all defences available to them at the time of the trial of the case in C.C.No.517 of 2008. 10. It is reported that the 1st accused has been suffering from the failure of both the kidneys and has been confined to bed. The presence of the 1st accused at the time of trial of C.C.No.517 of 2008 consequently is dispensed with except at the time of the framing of the charge, at the time of the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., at the time of the Judgment and at such other time as the learned trial Judge considers necessary, for which the learned trial Judge may issue direction through a reasoned order. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 1st April, 2011 TJMR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6859 of 2008 DATE: 1.04.2011