1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.05/2026 of Kalpeni Police Station, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, seeking the following relief:

                  “To quash all proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.5/2026 of Kalpeni Police Station, Union Territory of Lakshadweep.”

2. Heard both sides.

3. As per Annexure A FIR, which is under challenge herein, crime was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 318(3) (pari materia to Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter), 223 (pari materia to Section 188 of the IPC) and 329(4) (pari materia to Section 448 of the IPC) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’ hereinafter), by the petitioner, on the basis of a special report submitted by Police Constable, (PC) 563 on 27.04.2026, who was on duty on board in MV Corals, a ship operating between Kalpeni and Kochi, on 24.04.2026. The allegation in the report is that two persons engaged in a quarrel in the ship in continuation of their romantic relationship. On a secret enquiry conducted by him, it was revealed that Ashhar Shabeeb had threatened and assaulted Afshan and that Ashhar Shabeeb was not in possession of any valid ticket.

4. On going through the report itself, it is evident that the Police Constable, who filed the report, did not have any direct knowledge of what had actually transpired.

5. In the above context, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that none of the offences would attract in the facts of the case and in fact, the only allegation to be found is ticket-less travel made by Ashhar Shabeeb in the ship. Therefore, he sought for quashment of the FIR being baseless.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep fairly conceded that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, none of the offences under Sections 318(3) and 223 of the BNS would prima facie attract. However, the learned Standing Counsel brought attention of this Court to Section 329(4) of the BNS to contend that the same would attract in the facts of the case, since the offence of commission of house trespass could be found from the materials. According to the learned Standing Counsel, a reading of Section 329(2) of the BNS would show that criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in a vessel would attract the offence of house-trespass. Thus, entry in a public transport vessel without a travel ticket would attract offence under Section 329(2) of the BNS. Therefore, the investigation for the said offence shall go on. As such, the quashment of the FIR in toto could not be allowed.

7. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Section 329 of the BNS, as such. and the same reads as under:

                  329. Criminal trespass and house- trespass-(1) Whoever enters into or upon property in the 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 is said to commit criminal trespass.

                  (2) Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house-trespass. Explanation.—The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser’s body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.

                  (3) 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 thousand rupees, or with both.

                  (4) Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

8. On reading Section 329(1) of the BNS, whoever enters into or upon property in the 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 such intent, is said to commit criminal trespass. Section 329(2) of the BNS defines house-trespass and it has been provided that whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house-trespass. Thus, commission of house-trespass into a vessel used as a human dwelling only would attract offence under Section 329(2) of the BNS. The punishment for committing criminal trespass and house-trespass is prescribed under Sections 329(3) and 329(4) of the BNS, respectively.

9. Here, the prosecution alleges the offence of house-trespass punishable under Section 329(4) of the BNS, and the offence is one under Section 329(2) of the BNS. The argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep is that criminal trespass into or upon a vessel would amount to house-trespass punishable under Section 329(4) of the BNS, as the entry of the petitioner in the vessel is without a travel ticket. In this context, it is worthwhile to mention that, in order to make out the offence of house-trespass, the ingredients of criminal trespass must first be established. Entry into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or unlawful remaining there with such intent, constitutes criminal trespass. Section 329(2) of the BNS provides that whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house-trespass. Thus, mere entry of a person in a vessel used for public transport without a ticket would not attract offence under Section 329(2) punishable under Section 329(4) of the BNS.

10. In the instant case, merely on the basis of hearsay information, a report was filed alleging commission of the offences alleged in the FIR without any basis. Shockingly, the Station House Officer registered crime against the petitioner without adverting to the crux of the complaint and without application of mind to satisfy whether the report made out the ingredients for the offences. Thus, the attitude of the Station House Officer is noted with extreme displeasure and in fact, registration of this crime itself is an abuse of the process of the court. In fact, none of the offences alleged would attract prima facie and therefore, the registration of the FIR and continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. It is the well settled law that when FIR is registered on the basis of frivolous and concocted materials, the same is not only an abuse of the process of the court, but also an absolute injustice to the accused implicated in the crime. Such FIRs must be quashed at the threshold.

11. Therefore, this Court is compelled to exercise the power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR and further proceedings, with strong warning to the officer who registered this crime, not to repeat such instances in future. The Superintendent of Police, Union Territory of Lakshadweep is specifically directed to give directions to the concerned police officers to be more cautious in registering crimes without substance hereinafter with a view to implicate innocent persons in the sphere of crimes.

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands allowed. Annexure-A FIR and all further proceedings thereto in Crime No.05/2026 of Kalpeni Police Station, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, against the petitioner herein, stand quashed.