Criminal trespass charges cannot lie against co-sharers possessing disputed joint property.

The second respondent, a retired Headmistress, alleged that the first petitioner and his family members were attempting to obtain control over a property at Mugalivakkam, Chennai, which was the subject of a family property dispute.

She alleged that the accused disconnected essential services, interfered with CCTV repairs, trespassed into her premises, broke open the door, abused her and her family members, and threatened to kill them if the property was not handed over.

On her complaint, Mangadu Police Station registered Crime No.478 of 2025 for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 448 and 506(i) of the IPC.

Following investigation, a final report was filed and taken cognizance as S.T.C.No.21 of 2026 by the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur.

The accused filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the proceedings.

Whether the allegations and materials disclosed the ingredients of criminal trespass or house-trespass under Section 448 IPC, particularly when the parties claimed competing rights in the property and a partition suit was pending?

Whether the materials disclosed the offence of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC?

Whether the allegations were sufficient to constitute offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the High Court’s power to prevent abuse of the process of law.

It considered the ingredients of Sections 448, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC.

The Court held that criminal trespass or house-trespass could not be sustained on the allegations where the parties claimed rights in the property and a partition suit was pending.

Section 341 IPC requires an allegation establishing wrongful restraint, which was absent on the facts.

For Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, the Court relied on Abdul Agis v. State, holding that specific obscene words must be alleged for Section 294(b), while a threat under Section 506(i) must be real and capable of causing apprehension, rather than being a mere trivial expression.

The Court also relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, particularly the category covering proceedings manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance arising from a private dispute.

The Court noted that the second respondent was the wife of the first accused’s deceased brother and that the dispute arose from competing claims over the property.

Since the parties asserted equal or competing shares and a partition suit, O.S.No.325 of 2023, was already pending, the allegation that the petitioners had committed house-trespass was not sustainable in the circumstances.

The complaint also did not specifically allege that the respondent had been wrongfully restrained, defeating the charge under Section 341 IPC.

With respect to Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, the Court found no sufficient particulars identifying the obscene words allegedly used or demonstrating a real and operative threat of the kind required by law.

In view of the property-based nature of the dispute and the absence of the necessary statutory ingredients, continuation of the prosecution was considered an abuse of process and consistent with the Bhajan Lal category warranting quashing.

It accordingly allowed the Criminal Original Petition and quashed the proceedings in S.T.C.No.21 of 2026 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur, against all four petitioners.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.