# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
# **`PRESENT`**
# **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 4TH ASWINA, 1945`**
# **`CRL.MC NO. 4495 OF 2014`**
```
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 2018/2013 OF JUDICIAL
```
```
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I ,PERUMBAVOOR
```
## **`PETITIONER/S:`**
```
1ANNIES, AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.JOSE, CHITTINAPPALLY HOUSE, CHENGAL,
VADAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALADY.
2VINNUS, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.JOSE, CHITTINAPPALLY HOUSE,
CHENGAL,VADAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALADY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.JOY
SMT.LAISA B.JOSE
```
## **`RESPONDENT/S:`**
```
1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KALADY,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2JOHNSON, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.CHAKKUNNI, CHITTINAPPALLY HOUSE,
CHENGAL,VADAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALADY.
BY ADV SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
```
## **`OTHER PRESENT:`**
```
NIMA JACOB PP
```
```
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
```
```
ON 26.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
```
-2-
Crl.M.C No. 4495 of 2014
## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.**
====================================================== Crl.M.C No. 4495 of 2014 ============================================================= Dated this the 26[th] day of September, 2023
## **ORDER**
This Crl.M.C is filed to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.2018 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor arsing from Crime No.1114 of 2012 of Kalady Police Station. Annexure A1 is the FIR.
2. The prosecution case is that on 10.09.2012 at about 2 pm, the accused because of the enmity towards the de facto complainant abused him and with a view to intimidate him violated the order of injuction of Munisiff Court, Aluva in OS No.69 of 2012 and trespassed into the residential property of the de facto complainant and abused, threatened with dare consequence. Annexure A2 is the final report. The petitioners are mother and son. The husband of the 1[st] petitioner and the father of the 2[nd] petitioner is one Mr.Jose. The de facto complainant is the brother’s son of the abovesaid Jose. There is a dispute with respect to the identity and fixation of boundary of family property consequent on its partition. It is the case of the
-3-
Crl.M.C No. 4495 of 2014
petitioners that even if the entire allegation in Annexure A2 are accepted, no offence is made out under Sections 447, 294(b), 506 (ii) read with 34 IPC.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the public prosecutor.
4. The main contention of the petitioners is that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioners. To decide the same, it will be better to extract the charge submitted by the police against the petitioners herein:
"ബഹു. ആലുവ മുൻസിഫ് ക ോടതിയുടെ ഇൻജംഗ്ഷൻ ഓർഡർ നിലവിലിരിക്കെ ആയതിനു വിപരീതമായി 1 ഉം 2 ഉം പ്രതികൾ 10.09.12. ഉച്ചയക്ക 2 മണികക ഒന്നാം സാക്ഷിയുടെ ഉടമസ്ഥതയിലുള്ള വടക്കുംഭാഗം വില്ലേജിൽ, ചെ ങ്ങൽ കരയിൽ വട്ടത്തറ ജംഗ്ഷനിൽ നിന്നും സുമാർ 200 മീറ്റർ പടിഞ്ഞാറുമാറി വടക്കു ദർശനത്തിൽ സ്ഥിതി ചെ യ്യുന്ന കാഞ്ഞൂർ പഞ്ചായത്തിൽ നിന്നും iii/321-നാം നമ്പരായുള്ള ചിറ്റിനപ്പിള്ളി വീട്ടുപുരയിടത്തിന്റെ തെ ക്കു കിഴക്കു മൂല ഭാഗത്തു അതിക്രമിചച കയറി ഒന്നാം പ്രതി ഒന്നാം സാക്ഷിയെ ചീത്ത വിളിച മനനോവിഷമപ്പെടുത്തിയും, രണ്ടാം പ്രതി കയ്യിൽ ഒരു ഇടിക്കട്ടയുമായി "ഞാൻ ഇവിടെ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നെങ്കിൽ നിന്റെയും കുടുംബത്തിന്റെയും " എന ഇടപാട് അവസാനിപ്പിച്ചേനെ ന പറഞഞ ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തി മരണഭയം ഉളവാക്കിയും പ്രതികൾ കൃത്യത്തിന് പരസ്പരം സഹായികളും ഉത്സാഹികളുമായി വർത്തിചച മേൽ വകുപ്പുകൾ പ്രകാരമുള്ള കുറ്റം ചെ യ്തിരിക്കുന്നു എന്ന കാര്യം.
-4-
Crl.M.C No. 4495 of 2014
5. The first offence alleged is under section 188 IPC. The learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC based on the police charge sheet, in the light of the bar under Section 195 (1)(a) Cr.P.C. This point is considered by this Court in **Shajahan v. State of Kerala and others [2021 KHC 5632]** . The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
_“7. An offence punishable under S.188 IPC is also alleged against the petitioner on the ground that, when the order of the court allowing the second respondent to reside in his house was produced before him, he refused to comply with that order. Learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence punishable under S.188 IPC on the basis of the charge – sheet filed by the police. Cognizance of the offence punishable under S.188 IPC taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the police charge – sheet is apparently illegal. As far as the offence punishable under S.188 IPC is concerned, the court could have taken cognizance only on the basis of a complaint filed by the public servant concerned as provided under S.195(I)(a) Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, the case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under S.188 IPC is also liable to be quashed.”_
Therefore, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC by
the learned Magistrate based on a police report is unsustainable.
-5-
Crl.M.C No. 4495 of 2014
6. The next offence alleged against the petitioners is Section 447 IPC. Section 447 IPC says about the punishment for criminal trespass. Criminal trespass is defined in Section 441 IPC. It will be better to extract Section 441 IPC here:
_“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”._
Even as per Annexure A2 final report, there is no case to the police that the petitioners entered the property. As per the final report, it is only stated that the petitioners entered the south west corner of the property. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to say that there is criminal trespass. Therefore, the offence under Section 447 IPC will not stand against the petitioners.
7. The next offence alleged is under Section 294 (b) IPC. As per the decision of this Court in James Jose v. State of Kerala [2019
-6-
Crl.M.C No. 4495 of 2014
(3) KHC 531], the scope of Section 294(b) was considered by this Court in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment here:
_“4. In order to secure a conviction, the provisions of S.294 of IPC require two particulars to be proved by the prosecution, namely (i) the offender has done any obscene act in any public place or has sung, recited or uttered any obscene song or word in or near any public place; and (ii) has so caused annoyance to others. If the act is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered in or near any public place or that it causes no annoyance to others, no offence is committed.”_
Even if the entire allegation in Annexure A2 final report are accepted, no offence is made out under Section 294(b) IPC. It is only stated that the 1[st] accused used filthy languages. What exactly the language used is not mentioned in the final report. In such circumstances, Section 294(b) IPC is also not made out.
8. Finally the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC is also alleged. Section 506(ii) IPC deals about criminal intimidation. To attract Section 506(ii) IPC, the threat should be to cause death or grievous hurt. Even though the words of the 2[nd] respondent, which is
-7-
Crl.M.C No. 4495 of 2014
extracted in the final report, is accepted in toto, I am of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC is also not made out.
The upshot of the above discussion is that no offence is made out even if the entire allegations in Annexure A2 final report is accepted. Therefore, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.2018 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor arsing from Crime No.1114 of 2012 of Kalady Police Station, are quashed.
sd/-
## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**JUDGE**
das
-8-
Crl.M.C No. 4495 of 2014
## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4495/2014`**
## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES`
```
ANNEXURE-A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR FILED IN CRIME
NO.1114/2012 DT.24.9.2012
```
```
ANNEXURE-A2: A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET
DT.11.4.2013 FILED BY THE KALADY POLICE.
```
```
ANNEXURE-A3: A TRUE COPY OF THE S.161 STATEMENT OF THE
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT CW1 ALONG WITH THE READABLE COPY.
```
```
ANNEXURE-A4: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA IN WPC NO.31054/13 DT.5.2.2014.
```
