Allahabad High Court
Yusuf And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 May, 2026
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:103340
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17231 of 2026
Yusuf And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Manoj Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by applicants praying for quashing of charge-sheet dated 07.04.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 02.07.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.11545 of 2024 (State Vs. Yusuf and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.516 of 2023, under Sections 489, 447 IPC, P.S. Behat, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Saharanpur.
3. The only argument raised by learned counsel for applicants is that implication of the applicants under Section 447 IPC in charge-sheet is unwarranted since for implication under Section 447 IPC, prior notice is mandatory as per U.P. Amendment Act, 1961. In support of his submission, learned counsel for applicants place reliance upon a judgement of this Court passed in the case of Rahtu Lal @ Rahtu Ram @ Divyanand & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another passed in Application U/s 482/378/407 No. 1421 of 2004, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"5.7 In the above facts and circumstances, applicants cannot be termed as trespassers nor they can be tried under the provisions of Section 447 I.P.C., because no offence under that section is made out against the applicants. Since notice under amended Section 441 I.P.C. is mandatory requirement but the same has not been completed, because no notice under Section 441 I.P.C. is ever sent to applicants. Due to non compliance of this mandatory provision, offence of "criminal trespass" which has been defined in Section 441 I.P.C. has not been made out, therefore, charge sheet filed against applicants under Section 447 I.P.C. is legally not sustainable."
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission made on behalf of applicants by way of submitting that effect of non sending of notice under amended Section 441 I.P.C. has to be looked by learned court concerned and applicants may move an application of discharge before learned court concerned.
5. Since legal question has been raised by learned counsel for applicants and as such, process for issuing notice to opposite party no.2, is hereby dispensed with.
6. For proper appreciation of the rival arguments raised on behalf of parties, amended Section 441 and 447 I.P.C. are of vital importance and the same are reproduced hereinbelow :-
"441. Criminal trespass.- Whoever enters into or upon property in 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, or, having entered into or upon such property, whether before or after the coming into force of the Criminal Law (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1961, with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property fails to withdraw from such property, or its possession or use when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, duly served upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said to commit "criminal trespass"
"447. Punishment for criminal trespass. Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
7. It is quite clear from perusal of above amended Section 441 I.P.C. that any person entered into possession of any property of another person before or after coming into force of the criminal law (U.P. Amendment Act, 1961), with the intention to take unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property and fails to withdraw from such property or its possession or use in compliance of the written notice of another person duly served upon him by the date specified in the notice as said to committed "criminal trespass".
8. Admittedly, in this case, no written notice as specified in the amended Section 441 I.P.C. to withdraw from such property or its possession or use of the land alleged to be of another person i.e. opposite party no. 2 has been served on the applicants, therefore, there is no occasion for the applicants to comply with such notice and vice-versa failing to comply with the notice and as such, no offence of "Criminal trespass" can be said to be committed. Overlooking these facts, charge sheet has been filed under Section 447 I.P.C. against the applicants whereupon cognizance of offence was taken by learned court concerned, is bad in the eyes of law.
9. In view thereof, cognizance order dated 02.07.2024 passed in pursuance of Section 447 IPC, is quashed. In sofar as offence under Section 489 IPC is concerned, the same is subject matter of trial and as such, learned court concerned is hereby directed to proceed with trial in pursuance of Section 489 IPC only except Section 447 IPC against applicants herein.
10. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.) May 5, 2026 Saif