Judgment : Per K. MOHAN RAM, J. 1. The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C.No. 434/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Arupukottai filed this petition seeking to quash the proceedings pending against them for the offence punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 452 I.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 323, 294 (b) and 452 I.P.C. But the respondent police filed the final report only under Sections 294(b) and 452 I.P.C. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 29.10.2004. But the FIR was registered only on 5.11.2004. There was a delay of 7 days. 3. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners also would submit that even as per the allegations made, the ingredients of offence under Section 294 (b), I.P.C. is not made out, since even according to the prosecution, the occurrence is said to have taken place only inside the house. Therefore, the occurrence is not in a public place or near a public place. Hence, the offence under Section 294 (b) I.P.C. is not made out. Then, the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. i.e., for criminal trespass need not be committed and it is also not sustainable. 4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He would submit that since the de facto complainant decided to solve the problem before the panchayat, there was a delay of 7 days in preferring the complaint. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not able to point out that the occurrence had taken place in a public place or near a public place. 6. Considering the materials available in the case and as per the final report filed by the respondent, the first accused entered into the house of the de facto complainant on 29.10.2004 and pulled the hands of the husband of the de facto complainant and as it was prevented by the de facto complainant, the accused Nos.1 to 3 abused her. Therefore, even according to the prosecution, admittedly the occurrence of abusing had taken place only inside the house. Therefore Section 294 (b) I.P.C. is not attracted. As the charge under Section 294 (b) I.P.C. is not made out, the offence of criminal trespass alone cannot be maintained, in the absence of any of the offence along with trespass to make out as a criminal House-trespass. 7. Therefore Section 294 (b) I.P.C. is not attracted. As the charge under Section 294 (b) I.P.C. is not made out, the offence of criminal trespass alone cannot be maintained, in the absence of any of the offence along with trespass to make out as a criminal House-trespass. 7. In these circumstances of the case, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. 434/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Arupukottai are quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently connected Crl. M.P.No. 42 of 2005 is closed.