Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The main complaint against accused Nos.2 and 3 was on 1.11.2023, where the accused Nos.2 and 3 came inside the house by ringing the bell and the complainant says that they barged into the house and were video graphing the house without her permission, thereby they trespassed the house. In my considered opinion when the parents-in-law come into the house of their son, where the house belongs to the daughter-in-law and son, which was jointly purchased, it cannot be treated as a trespass by the parents-in-law into their own sons house. As regards to the video graph through mobile phone, it is alleged that it was taken without her permission. It is pertinent to note that the accused Nos.2 and 3 came from Kerala from a remote village of Pathanamthitta district. They came to Bangalore, Brigade Millennium Apartment which is a beautiful apartment, therefore, they might have video graphed the building and the location and house, that cannot be ground to say they harassed the complainant. Therefore, I hold that the parents coming to the house of their own son, which was jointly owned by her son and daughter-in-law, does not amount to a trespass and even a permission of the daughter-in-law is not required to enter into the house. Even if they take photograph, in the house it cannot be considered as criminal intention. They have only taken the photo and it cannot amount to cruelty. Even if they go inside the bed room of their son, then they need not require permission of the daughter-in-law. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No.2, is that there was cruelty by accused Nos.2 and 3 and they trespassed the house on 1.11.2023, which cannot be an offence at all, to bring under the purview of section 498A of IPC. All the time, the accused No.1 and respondent No.2 stayed at Bangalore and she never stayed at house of the accused Nos.2 and 3 at Kerala. Therefore, continuing any proceedings against accused Nos.2 an 3 is nothing but abuse of process of law, but there is incriminating material against accused No.1 for having committed the offence. Therefore, the Criminal proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3 is liable to be quashed.