The Delhi High Court has set aside a Revisional Court order forming criminal trespassing charges under Section 452 IPC against the petitioners on finding that the property is occupied by the whole family jointly and there was no proof available of official partition and thus merely stepping into another portion of the same house forms no case.

The petitioner herein had been accused by the respondents of trespassing into their property and misbehaving with them. Respondent No.2 complainant is the sister-in-law of the petitioner No.1 being his brother’s wife, she had accused him and her father-in-law of assaulting and molesting her after trespassing into her space. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of the petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.3 and 4 are the daughters of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Petitioner No.2, 3 and 4 had been accused by Respondent No.2 of disrobing threats.

In details, Respondent No.2 alleges that petitioner no. 1 along with her father-in-law trespassed to their side (which she claims the family divided after the death of her mother-in-law). The father in law tried to rape her and both of them molested her, beat her up and outraged her modesty. The daughter and wife of the petitioner had been alleged to have threatened her of disrobing. In her narration, she stated that she was saved by her younger daughter who raised an alarm and other people of the locality collected on the spot. Further, it is alleged that while leaving the spot they all threatened that in case the complainant and her husband did not vacate the portion of the property, her entire family would be removed.

The Trial Court had noticed in its order that the complainant had lodged a police complaint after a delay of more than 50 days. Though the complainant had named the daughters of the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in her complaint but there were no specific allegations against them. There were several improvements in the version given, based on which, the FIR was registered. There were no allegations in the complaint given to the police that petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 had threatened to disrobe her.

The Trial Court noticed that the parties were residing in separate portions of the same house as per the family arrangement and there was no partition of the property by metes and bounds. Trial Court further held that as there was no partition of the property and parties were residing in the same house, it could not be said that the petitioners had committed house-trespass by stepping into another portion of the same house and as such, no case was made out under Section 452 IPC.

 Further, the Trial Court noticed that the allegation of the complainant that she was threatened to leave her house was vague and non-specific and, accordingly, petitioners were discharged of the offence under Section 506 IPC. 

Further, the Trial Court noticed that there were no specific allegations against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in the original complaint filed by the complainant and no prima facie case was made out against them for the offence under Sections 354/354A/323 IPC.

Accordingly, they were also discharged. Trial Court held that charge was liable to be framed against the petitioner No.1 under Sections 354/354A/323 IPC. Both the State as well as the complainant filed revisions against order.

Revisional Court has held that where one person enters the property in possession of the other with an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, such person commits criminal trespass. The Revisional Court was of the view that if the portion of the property was occupied by the possessors to the exclusion of the others, even though there was no partition by metes and bounds, said offence would be made out. It was noticed that the petitioner had alleged that she was residing in separate portions while the accused were residing in other portions and it was not the case that the accused persons were common users of the portions occupied by the complainant and accordingly, an offence under Section 452 IPC was made out against the petitioners.The reasoning given by the Revisional Court is based on the premise that the portion of the property alleged to be occupied by the complainant is in her exclusive possession.

Though as per High Court the Revisional Court has erred in not noticing that apart from bald allegation that the complainant was occupying the ground and second-floor consequent to an alleged family arrangement post the demise of her mother-in-law, there was no material produced to substantiate the same.

The High Court held that it was an admitted position that the property is a joint property at least in terms of possession where the accused, as well as the complainant, were residing. Even the statement of witnesses on record i.e. her brother shows that the portion admittedly occupied by the accused was adjoining to the room of the complainant. Merely because one family member enters into the room of another in the same property would not ipso facto, without any corroborative material, establish the offence of criminal trespass. 

The allegation is that the father-in-law entered the room and thereafter on his beckoning the others i.e. the petitioners entered the room. There is no material to substantiate that there was the exclusive possession of the complainant or that the petitioners had no right to enter the room. The allegation of the complainant is that they were occupying separate portions consequent to a family arrangement. No such family arrangement has been produced on record to show that the complainant was occupying the property to the exclusion of others.

The High Court held the Trial Court's observation over trespassing charges to be fair and just then Revisional Court and stated that no case of criminal trespassing is formed out.

The High Court dealt with other charges accordingly as well.

The Judgement has been delivered by SANJEEV SACHDEVA on 01-07-2019.

Read Judgement Here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :