JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is an application u/s 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by three Petitioners, Sudhir Solomon Sahu, Krushna Chandra Samal and Raghu Behera, accused in G.R. Case No. 972 of 1957, in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack. The facts leading upto this application are that a house in Alamchand Bazar in the town of Cuttack had two electric service connections, being Account Nos. 1008 and 3544. At the request of the registered consumers, these two service connections were disconnected in 13-5-1957 and 29-5.1957 respectively. Sometime before the actual discontinuance of electric supply, Shri S.S. Parija the then Additional District Magistrate of Cuttack came to occupy this house. After occupying the said premises, Shri Parija never intimated the Cuttack Electric Supply Company requiring them to supply the energy or to continue the supply of the same uninterrupted. On the morning of June 3, 1957, the Petitioners being directed by the licensee, the Cuttack Electric Supply Company, went over the aforementioned premises to remove the meters. On that day Shri S.S. Parija, the complainant, was absent from the house. After the Petitioners had removed the meter No. 1008, there was some objection by a minor son of Shri Parija to the removal of the other and the Petitioners accordingly left the premises without removing the same. Shri Parija after his return from tour, filed a first information report on June 9,1957, and the Police after a preliminary enquiry submitted a charge-sheet against the Petitioners Before this, the Petitioners were first arrested on June 25, and were released on bail by the police. The Magistrate took cognizance of the case on July 2, 1957, and directed the investigating officer to produce the accused persons by August 16, 1957. August 16 was a holiday. On the following day neither the accused persons were produced by the police nor did they appear themselves. Hence the Magistrate ordered issue of summons fixing the date of appearance to September 16, 1957. Although on six dates, following August 17, 1957, the learned Magistrate was passing order after order for the service of summons on the Petitioners, the summons were not served upon them. It is regrettable that the Magistrate did not take recourse to law in issuing non-bailable warrants against these Petitioners and proceed against the persons who were responsible for the non-service. It is regrettable that the Magistrate did not take recourse to law in issuing non-bailable warrants against these Petitioners and proceed against the persons who were responsible for the non-service. I am not, however, concerned with that in this proceeding. 2. All that was stated in the first information report by Shri Parija, was that the house In question was requisitioned by the Government since May 18, 1957, at a rental of Rs. 100/- a month. When he came to occupy the house, he found that the previous occupants who were enjoying the facilities of electricity had removed certain fixtures and he brought this to the notice of the owner of the house. Subsequently on May 29, 1957, some employees of the Electric Supply Company entered the premises without the knowledge of Shri Parija and disconnected the supply during his absence in office. He thereafter rang up the Power House and intimated the Electric Supply Company as to what had happened and asked them to warn their men not to repeat such actions in future. On June 3,1957, when he was out on tour certain employees of the said Company entered Into the premises and in spite of vehement protest of his people forcibly removed the meter without his knowledge. With these allegations, he requested the Officer in-Charge of the Lalbag Police Station to take necessary action. The Police, it appears, had examined Shri parija, his servant, Sudarshan Sahu and his minor son, Debdas Parija, on June 10,1957, and submitted the charge-sheet on July 4, 1957, as stated earlier. No independent witness of the locality appears to have been examined by the police. 3. In an application u/s 561 A if the allegations made in the first information report and the charge submitted by the police, do not di close any offence against the accused, the High Court can interfere at any stage of the proceeding. Interference to quash proceedings, however, can be taken recourse to only on two contingencies: (1) if the prosecution allegations even when accepted as true, do not establishing any offence against the accused, and (2) where an offence is established if the allegations are believed, but there is no evidence at all to support the allegations. Interference to quash proceedings, however, can be taken recourse to only on two contingencies: (1) if the prosecution allegations even when accepted as true, do not establishing any offence against the accused, and (2) where an offence is established if the allegations are believed, but there is no evidence at all to support the allegations. It is well-settled now that the High Court is always reluctant to substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the Magistrate who is trying the case before completion of the trial. But where the facts are so preposterous that the High Court feels satisfied that on the admitted facts, there is no case against the accused and when the High Court is clearly of the opinion that further prolongation of the proceeding would amount to harassment and abuse of the process of the Court, it is the duty of the High Court to interfere u/s 561 A (Vide AIR 1947 All. 348). 4. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it Is significant that the previous occupiers of the premises had informed the Electric Supply Company that they no longer want the supply of energy on those premises. Accordingly, the employees of the Company as directed by the superiors disconnected the supply of energy on May 13, and 29, 1947. Five and Sixteen days thereafter, they went over the premises to remove the meters. On that day they removed the meter bearing Account No. 1008 but they could not remove the other meter due to objection. Shri Parija in the meantime, never informed the Company that he wanted the supply to be continued. Naturally, when the Company sent their employees on the morning of June 3, 1957, to remove the meter a minor son of the complainant objected to the said removal. Even by the time the first information report was lodged Shri Parija did not intimate the Cuttack Electric Supply Company for retention of the supply line in the premises under his occupation. Now u/s 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, the licensee in this case the Cuttack Electric Supply Company is empowered to enter the premises and to remove the fittings or other apparatus for the supply of energy belonging to the licensee. Now u/s 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, the licensee in this case the Cuttack Electric Supply Company is empowered to enter the premises and to remove the fittings or other apparatus for the supply of energy belonging to the licensee. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 20, a licensee or any person duly authorised by a licensee may, at any reasonable time, and on informing the occupier of his intention enter any premises to which energy is or has been supplied by him for the purpose of removing where a supply of energy is no longer required, or where the licensee is authorised to take away and cot off such supply-lines-meters, fittings, works or apparatus belonging to the licensee. There is no dispute that the meter in question belongs to the licensee. According to the first Information report, Shri Parija never required the supply of energy to his premises between May 29 and June 8,1957, not even until the date of his lodging the first information report at the Lalbag Police Station. Under Chose 6 of the Schedule to the Indian Electricity Act which has the statutory force, where a requisition is made by the owner or occupier of any premises the Electric Supply Company shall supply the energy within one month if it is not prevented from doing so by cyclones, floods, storms or other occurrences beyond his control, and shall continue to supply energy in accordance with the requisition. But there are certain conditions which must be fulfilled before the supply is made, for instance a contract in writing, security deposit etc. When the supply is disconnected, it can only be restored by a requisition by the owner or occupier and on payment of certain fixed sum. Admittedly the supply was disconnected and there was no requisition by Shri Parija for restoration. 5. Mr. Acharya learned standing counsel appealing on behalf of the State wanted to have the benefit of Sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, but in my opinion Sub section (5) does not apply to this case at all. Sub-section (3) only comes into play when there is a refusal. According to the contention of Mr. Acharyya there was refusal on May 29 and on the 3rd of June there was protest against it. Sub-section (3) only comes into play when there is a refusal. According to the contention of Mr. Acharyya there was refusal on May 29 and on the 3rd of June there was protest against it. But according to the affidavit filed in this Court the Petitioners obtained the requisite, permission of the occupier through his servant. There is nothing on record to show that this was not the fact. The fact is that the employees of the Company went on May 29 to disconnect the line and again on June 3 to remove the meter. Hence the question of refusal does not arise. Thus, under Sub section (1) of Section 20 the licensee had the power to enter into the premises with the permission of the occupier which was done in this case. 6. Now all that remains to be considered is whether prima facie an offence u/s 418, I.P.C. has been made out on the allegations as disclosed in the first information report. 'Criminal trespass' has been defined under-Section 441, I.P.C. meaning 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. Hence according to Section 441 what is necessary is that there most be an entry into or upon the property in the possession of another., if such entry is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property and such entry or unlawfully remaining must be with intent to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property. In this case, as I have stated earlier, under the Indian Electricity Act, the licensee or the person authorised by the licensee had the power to enter into the permises with the permission of the occupier to remove, the meter, and they had lawfully entered into the permises under Sub section (1) of Section 20. Then next question to be considered is after having lawfully entered into the permises whether they have unlawfully remained there with intent to cause intimidation, insult or annoyance to the occupier. Then next question to be considered is after having lawfully entered into the permises whether they have unlawfully remained there with intent to cause intimidation, insult or annoyance to the occupier. Assuming the allegations in the first information report to be true, it does not disclose a case of unlawful entry into the permises with any criminal intent, nor does it disclose that the Petitioners having entered lawfully remained there with intent to commit an offence. In this view of mine I am supported by the majority decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Vullappa and four Ors. v. S. Bheema Row ILR 41 Mad 156. The majority view in that case was that trespass is an offence u/s 441, Indian Penal Code, only If it is committed with one of the intents specified in the section and proof that a trespass committed with some other object was known to the accused to be likely or certain to cause insult or annoyance is insufficient to sustain a conviction u/s 448, Indian Penal Code. In this case, as I have stated earlier, the employees of the Cuttack Electric Supply Company lawfully entered into the permises of the complainant and at the time of their entry would either insult or annoy or intimidate any person living In the said permises. Accordingly, in my opinion, regarding the first information report along with the evidence as recorded by the police in this case, no offence u/s 448, I.P.C. appears to have been disclosed at an Thus, this petition is bound to succeed. In the result, I would make the Rule absolute, quash the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack", in G.R. Case No. 972 of 1957. The revision is accordingly allowed, and the proceeding in question is quashed. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed