Kerala High Court
Martin P.J vs Martin on 4 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 7553 OF 2019
CRIME NO.3137/2014 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
CC NO.829 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, ANGAMALY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MARTIN P.J.,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, VENGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 572.
BY ADVS.
DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
N.R.SANGEETHARAJ
VINOD.S.PILLAI
RONA GEEVARGHESE
GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & COMPLAINANT:
1 MARTIN,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.MATHEW, KOTTACKAL HOUSE, CHURCH NAGAR,
ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 572.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
SRI RENJITH GEORGE, SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:18182
Crl.M.C 7553 of 2019 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in CC No.829/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly. He faces criminal prosecution for the commission of offence under Sections 451, 294(b) and 427 of IPC in the said case. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in the said case.
2. The prosecution case is that on 28.11.2014, at about 5 pm, the petitioner criminally trespassed into the establishment by name 'Arts India Designing Centre', functioning in the building with No.AM XXVII/459 of Angamaly Municipality, where the de facto complainant conducts an interior designing shop, and thereafter, verbally abused the wife of the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner had destroyed the sign board of the said institution and caused loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the de facto complainant.
3. The case has been registered by the SI of Police, Angamaly, on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the de facto complainant on 04.12.2014. After the completion of the investigation, the SI of Police, Angamaly, laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, in respect of the aforesaid offences alleged 2025:KER:18182 Crl.M.C 7553 of 2019 3 against the petitioner.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent, and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is the further contention of the petitioner that none of the offences alleged in this case are made out even if the entire allegations in the final report are accepted in totality.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. As regards the offence under Section 451 IPC, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, unless it is shown that the alleged criminal trespass was made by the accused into a building, tent, or vessel, used as human dwelling, or any building used as a place of worship, or as a place for the custody of property, it is not possible to say that the offence under Section 451 IPC is attracted. Accordingly, it is argued that the establishment by name 'Arts India Designing Centre', functioning in Building No.AM XXVII/459 of Angamaly Municipality, would not come under any of the aforesaid categories of building, and hence the offence under Section 451 IPC is not attracted. I am not inclined to accept the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is clear from Section 442 of the Indian Penal Code that the term house trespass would include a 2025:KER:18182 Crl.M.C 7553 of 2019 4 trespass made to a place used for the custody of property. The scene mahazar prepared in this case would go to show that the building where the petitioner allegedly committed criminal trespass, was a place where the computer, and other furnitures belonging to the de facto complainant were kept. Thus, there is absolutely no point in arguing that criminal trespass into the aforesaid building will not attract the offence under Section 451 IPC, since it will not come under the definition of a house or other building as envisaged under Section 442 IPC.
7. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the building where the petitioner allegedly committed criminal trespass actually belonged to him, and hence the entry of the above person into that building cannot be termed as a criminal trespass. It is also pointed out that the Angamaly Municipality had issued some notices to the petitioner in connection with the unauthorised construction of a shed in front of that building, and also the unauthorised use of the said building. Thus, according to the petitioner, he has got the right to enter into the said building, and to remove the unauthorised structures created there by the de facto complainant. Here also, I am not able to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the offence of criminal trespass as defined under Section 441 IPC rests 2025:KER:18182 Crl.M.C 7553 of 2019 5 upon the right of possession of a person, against whom the aforesaid crime is committed. As per Section 441 IPC, the offence of criminal trespass would be attracted if it is shown that the offender had entered into a property remaining under the possession of another, with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. As far as the present case is concerned, the contention of the de facto complainant is that he has been in possession of the building where he is conducting an institution by name 'Arts India Designing Centre'. The question of ownership of the said building is having no relevancy as far as the crime of criminal trespass is concerned. It may be true that the Municipality might have issued notices in connection with some objectionable things in the said building. But, the petitioner herein is having no manner of right to take law into his hands, and to undo the alleged objectionable acts committed by the de facto complainant in the building, where he is conducting business. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner in the above regard, is prima facie unsustainable.
8. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offence under Section 294(b) is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, since the precise words uttered by the petitioner have not been mentioned in the prosecution records. It is also 2025:KER:18182 Crl.M.C 7553 of 2019 6 pointed out that the alleged verbal abuse made by the petitioner, causing harassment to the wife of the de facto complainant, cannot be said to have been done in a public place, and hence, the offence under the aforesaid Section is not attracted. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the statement given by one of the witnesses to the Investigating Officer, is to the effect that the petitioner was seen uttering abusive words in front of the aforesaid institution, where the de facto complainant conducts business, and that he criminally trespassed into the said building only thereafter. The above statement of the witness, who has been cited as CW4 in the charge sheet, would go to show that the abusive words are alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner in a public place in front of the building, where the de facto complainant conducts his business. With regard to the other aspect, as to whether the abusive words uttered by the petitioner would come under the definition of obscene words, it is a matter to be dealt with by the Trial Court. It is not possible for this Court, while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to evaluate the evidence in detail, and to conclude whether the aforesaid evidence are sufficient to warrant a conviction. As far as the present case is concerned, it could be seen from the final report and other records relied on by the Investigating Agency that the prosecution has garnered sufficient materials to prosecute the petitioner 2025:KER:18182 Crl.M.C 7553 of 2019 7 for the commission of the offences alleged. That being so, there is absolutely no ground to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and to nip the prosecution in the bud. Therefore, the prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings, cannot be entertained.
Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH JUDGE IAP 2025:KER:18182 Crl.M.C 7553 of 2019 8 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7553/2019 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.3137/2014 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION DATED 04/12/2014.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.829/2016 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY ARISING OUT
OF CRIME NO.3137/2014 OF ANGAMALY POLICE
STATION DATED 21/12/2014.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE ANGAMALY
MUNICIPALITY TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ANGAMALY POLICE STATION DATED 08/11/2014.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE
ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
DATED 15/01/2015.