Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"17. In order to constitute an offence of criminal trespass, the ingredients of Section 441 IPC will have to be satisfied. A reading of Section 441 IPC, it can be found that the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the property is a necessary ingredient of the offence of criminal trespass. The Trespasser is a person, entering the premises of another with knowledge that his entrance is excess of the permission that has been given to him. A mere entry into a property is not enough, except where such a entry is done to commit an offence injurious to some persons interested in the property, on which, trespass is committed, or for the purpose of causing annoyance to such a person. Therefore, such aggravated circumstances only make a trespass into a criminal trespass.

- 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8242 HC-KAR parties, it will be too difficult to portray the act of the petitioner as a trespass. The witnesses have only spoken about the incident and there is no material to show that the petitioner intended to commit a criminal trespass as provided under Section 441 of IPC.

19. Going to the next offence of mischief, mischief has been defined in Section 425 IPC to mean an act done with an intention to cause or knowing that is likely to cause wrongful loss or damages to the public or any person, causes destruction to any property, etc., and must involve the mental act with the destructive animus. The destruction with an object to a wrongful loss or damage is obligatory to be established. In this case, what was removed from the property was the Seemai Karuvelam trees, bushes, garbage and medical waste, which was lying in front of residence of the petitioner. Therefore by no stretch, the act of the petitioner will constitute an offence of mischief.

However, the dismissal of the special leave petition would not come in the way of further investigation which is required to be undertaken by the police as per law."

(Emphasis supplied)

- 35 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8242 HC-KAR

10. The issue now would be, whether these petitioners can be alleged of offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC. Section 447 has its ingredients in Section 441 of the IPC. Section 441 punishes a person who trespasses into another's property. In the case at hand, three of the petitioners i.e. accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 were not even inside the property.

Therefore, the said offence cannot be laid against them. The remaining accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the wife and her parents.

The wife was entitled to stay in the matrimonial house, as it was her matrimonial house, and the parents of the wife who had come to visit the wife cannot be said to have trespassed into the property i.e. the matrimonial house. Therefore, the offence under Section 447 of the IPC does not meet the ingredients that are necessary under Section 441 of the IPC.

The offence under Section 447 of the IPC is thus loosely laid against the petitioners.