THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2184 of 2008 (Dated : 17-11-2011) Between: K.B.Sreekanth S/o Buddaiah …Petitioner A n d State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyd. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2184 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the accused in C.C.No.1578 of 2007 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District to quash the proceedings therein. 2. Lw-1-GDG Prasad Raju, Laftnent Colonel, Senior Security Officer, RCI, Hyderabad presented report before the Station House Officer, Pahadishareef, Cyberabad alleging inter alia that the petitioner entered in the Army Line of COP DSC, RCI, Hyderabad at about 09 30 hrs on 17th October 2007 and the Security NCO and other staff at unit quarter guard caught him and handed over to the S.H.O., P.S. Pahadisahreef, Cyberabad for further investigation and action. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.422 of 2007 under Section 447 IPC came to be registered by Lw-7-G.Satyanarayana, Sub Inspector of Police, Pahadisahreef, P.S. After completing investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, R.R District. 3. The learned II Metropolitan Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.1578 of 2007. Hence this petition with a prayer stated supra. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a post-graduate in mechanical engineering having completed M.Tech from REC Engineering College at Bhopal and he hails from most respectable family and his father and younger brother are professional engineers and his mother and elder brother are practicing Advocates. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is suffering mental disorder during short intervals and during the course of existence of mental disorder, he does not know of his acts and he is not conscious of his acts. He would also contend that on the date of the incident, he entered into the premises under the impression that recruitment was going on and he had no intention of committing any offence and therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1578 of 2007 would amount to abuse of process of Court. 5. The scope and exercise of power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice was set out in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal[1]. A note of caution was however added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise , Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of the power is based on sound principles. This inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 6. The petitioner allegedly entered in the Army Line of Coil DSC RCI at about 9.30 hours on 17-10-2007. A panchanama came to be drafted at the time of his apprehension. 7. Nothing is seized from the possession of the petitioner. Section 441 defines criminal trespass, which reads as hereunder:- 441. Criminal trespass.—Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence is said to commit “criminal trespass”. 8. A reading of Section 441 makes it clear that either entry into or continuance to stay in a property in possession of another would constitute an offence under that section if the same is with an intention to commit any offence or intimidate, insult or annoy any such person in possession of such property. In order to establish a charge of criminal trespass under Section 441 IPC, it is essential for the prosecution to prove the intention laid down in the section, i.e., intended to annoy etcetera. Intention must always be gathered from the circumstances of the case. An unlawful entry upon property does not amount to criminal trespass unless one of the ingredients mentioned in the section is made out by the prosecution. The charge sheet averments do not disclose that the petitioner entered into premises of the de facto complainant with any criminal intention. The petitioner is stated to be a Post-graduate in mechanical engineering and he is suffering from mental ill-health. The panchanama also does not disclose that the petitioner entered into the premises with an intention to commit any offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any one. None of the witnesses examined during the course of the investigation stated that the petitioner entered the premises with any criminal intention. Therefore, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1578 of 2007 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District amounts to abuse of process of Court. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.1578 of 2007 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B.Nagar, R.R.District. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.17-11-2011 RAR [1] AIR 1992 SC 604