Judgment : This is a revision petition by the accused. The facts are summarily as follows: 2. P.W.1’s mother-in-law and accused’s father are respectively sister and brother. In other words, P.W.1’s husband and the accused are cousins. When P.W.1’s daughter attained puberty the accused offered a saree to P. W. 1’s daughter on the occasion of the ceremony. One month prior to the occurrence, the accused’s father passed away. For the obsequies, the usage in the family of the accused required P.W.1 to make some presents. On that occasion, P.W.I presented the very same saree that the accused offered to P. W.1’s daughter for her puberty. When the accused became aware of that act of indelicacy he went to the house of P.W.I and questioned her about the propriety of her action and shouted at her for her unbecoming act. It was also alleged by the prosecution that he has shown a knife and threatened her. 3. The Investigating Officer thought it fit to file a report under Sec.173, Code of Criminal Procedure, to the effect that offences under Secs.452 and 506, Part II, I.P.C., appeared to have been committed. The trial Court convicted the accused under the above said sections. On appeal, both the convictions were set aside and the appellate court came to the conclusion that there was no adequate proof that the knife was shown and that there was threat of hurt. But it held that the fact that the accused going into the house of P.W.1 and shouting at her was proved and that such a cause of action when a lady was all alone was reprehensible. Accordingly, it set aside the convictions and sentences under the Secs.452 and 506, Part II, I.P.C., but found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 448, I.P.C. house trespass, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.100. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that no offence punishable under Sec.448, I.P.C., was made out since there was no intention in the mind of the accused to commit any offence or to intimidate or insult or annoy P.W.1. In this case, what is proved is that the petitioner went into the house of P.W.1 and shouted at her. In this case, what is proved is that the petitioner went into the house of P.W.1 and shouted at her. But one has to remember that the accused and P.W.1 are close relatives and that the fact of the accused going into the house of P.W.1 even when she happened to be alone cannot be considered to amount to any offence. Insult or annoyance caused to P.W.1 was in the circumstances so trifling as a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain of any harm. The Criminal Administration machinery should not have been pressed into service for such an insignificant act. A cardinal principle of law is: de minimis non curat lex, viz. law does not care for trivialities. This principle finds its expression in Sec.95 of the Indian Indian Indian Penal Code and is of universal application. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, it is surprising to note that the Investigating Officer has lost his time in processing the case and that the trial court has taken cognizance of the case when no offence worth trying took place, especially when the criminal administration machinery is over-burdened by so many grave acts which require its swift and full attention. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside.