Allahabad High Court
Neha Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36795
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3504 of 2025
Applicant :- Neha Srivastava
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Mishra,Nagesh Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pratik J. Nagar
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Nagesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri J. Nagar Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pratik J. Nagar for opposite party No. 2.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have made a joint statement at bar that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.
3. This application U/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the cognizance order and summoning order dated 09.08.2024 submitted in Case Crime No. 27 of 2024 under Section 447 IPC, P.S. Shivkuti, District Prayagraj as well as Case No. 2951 of 2024 (State Vs. Neha Srivastava), pending in the Court of ACJM, Allahabad.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant on 26.02.2024 at 15:16 hours being FIR No. 0027 under Section 447 relatable to the commission of offences on 31.01.2024 with an allegation that the applicant herein who was working as a staff nurse in the hospital in question, her services stood terminated with effect from 31.10.2023 and according to the service condition, three months pay was to be given which was paid, on 04.01.2024, the husband of the applicant submitted an application to vacate the premises by 31.01.2024 and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards the rent for December and January. However, the allegation is that the applicant has not vacated the residential accommodation, thus, offences under Section 447 of the IPC have been committed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Section 447 of the IPC is not applicable in the present facts of the case and no offences have been committed so as to invoke the said provision. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, it is not a case wherein the applicant is a stranger and a trespasser but she was an employee of the opposite party No. 2, thus, criminal proceedings are not maintainable as rather to the contrary proceedings under civil law would be initiated for vacation of the residential accommodation provided to her. He seeks to rely upon the decision in the case of Som Nath Paul Vs. Ram Bharose 1989 0 Supreme (All) 629, Application U/s 482 No. 41999 of 2019 (Dr. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21811 of 2019 (Pawan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 2 others) decided on 27.11.2019.
6. Countering the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagar, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the offences have been committed under Section 447 of the IPC and, thus, rightly the criminal proceedings stood drawn against the applicant which culminated into passing of the impugned orders which are subject matter of challenge before this Court. According to him, the allotment and retention of residential accommodation is co-terminus with the employment and as soon as the employment stood terminated then the accommodation ought to have been vacated and in failing to do so the offences under Section 447 stands committed. He further contends that as per the amendment made in Section 441 of the IPC as applicable in the State of U.P., notice was duly served upon the applicant. He seeks to rely upon the decision in Narayan Bhagwant Rao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 100 so as to contend that admission is the best evidence and once the applicant knew that retention of the quarter is subject to continuance in service then the applicant has no right to continue after the services have been terminated. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rash Behari Chatterjee Vs. Fagu Shaw and others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 20.
7. Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer has adopted the submission of the learned Senior Counsel who appears for the opposite party No. 2.
8. I have heard the arguments made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
9. The basic question which falls for consideration in the present proceedings at this stage is whether Section 447 of the IPC stands attracted or not. Apparently, the applicant happens to be the employee of the hospital in question, she pursuant to her employment was accorded an official accommodation. Her services stood terminated requiring her to vacate the premises. The applicant preferred a writ petition before this Court, Writ-A No. 770 of 2024 which came to be dismissed on the ground that already the husband of the applicant had preferred an application on 04.01.2024 to vacate the premises by 31.01.2024 by 5:00 P.M. and also make the payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month as the rent of the premises. Learned counsel for the applicant has not disputed that the official accommodation as per the appointment order was a condition of the service.
10. Section 441 defines criminal trespass according to which whoever enters into upon property in possession of others with an intent to commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy any person in the possession of the said property or have wrongfully entered into or upon such property unlawfully remains there with the intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or there is an intent to commit an offence is said to commit the criminal trespass. Further Section 447 of IPC itself provides that whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with an imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- or with both.
11. Thus, what is understandable is the fact that criminal trespass itself takes into its ambit two contingencies, wherein the accused enters into the property in possession of the other unlawfully or having lawfully entered into upon the property unlawfully remains there. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that Section 441 of the IPC is not attracted, is not convincing as the same applies in those contingencies where a person has lawfully entered into the property and unlawfully remains there. Taking into account the first information report in its face value, it is more than evident that allegation is that the applicant though has lawfully entered into the property but remained unlawfully present. Apparently, the opposite party No. 2 has served a notice which is a mandatory requirement of Section 441 as amended in the State of U.P. and, thus, the said condition also stands fulfilled. The judgment in the case of Ram Ji Vs. Vijay Krishna and others: 2015 0 Supreme (All) 53 is not applicable in the facts of the case particularly when the notice stood served upon the applicant which is a mandatory requirement under Section 441 as amended in State of U.P. As regards the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra) and Dr. Pradeep Kumar (supra) are concerned, they are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference for quashing of the cognizance and summoning order dated 09.08.2024 submitted in Case Crime No. 27 of 2024 under Section 447 I.P.C., P.S. Shivkuti, District Prayagraj as well as Case No. 2951 of 2024 (State Vs. Neha Srivastava), pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Room No. 9, Allahabad.
12. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
Order Date :- 12.3.2025
Rajesh
