ORDER : 1. The petitioners and respondent no.2-Company have a civil dispute with regard to a property and an original suit is said to be pending in this regard. 2. On the allegation that on 20.04.2014 at about 02.30 p.m. the petitioners came near the scheduled property, trespassed on to the property and threatened the guards of respondent no.2-Company and they held weapons like macchu and donne (matchet and sticks), a complaint was preferred to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C and it was prayed that cognizance be taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 406, 420, 447 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said complaint was referred to the police for investigation and the police after due investigation has filed charge sheet in C.C.No.919/2019 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, wherein the petitioners are sought to be charged under Sections 143, 144, 147, 447 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioners are alleged to have committed the following offences as per the Police: "UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 447, 506 R/W 149 IPC A Sale Deed dated 11/06/2010 has been entered into in the name of Witness No.1 on behalf of Confidant Company in respect of 1 Acre 27 Guntas in Sy. No. 2/2 and 2 Acres 04 Guntas in Sy. No. 5/2 of B. Hosahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. On 20/04/2014 the witness No.2 had taken Witnesses No.3 and 4 to the said land and when they were working on the land for developing the same, around 2.30 pm on the same day, the accused A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 shown in Column No.12 of the charge sheet descended on the said land holding clubs and sickles in their hands and trespassers into the above said land threatened witnesses No.2 to 6 of killing them if they do not stop the work. It has been established from investigation that they pushed Witnesses No.2 to 6 out of the said land and threatened to kill them. Hence charge sheet has been filed against Accused No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 under the above said Sections." Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 3. It has been established from investigation that they pushed Witnesses No.2 to 6 out of the said land and threatened to kill them. Hence charge sheet has been filed against Accused No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 under the above said Sections." Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 3. The case of the petitioners is that respondent no.2-Company ought to have approached the jurisdictional police and only thereafter if there was a refusal on part of the Police they should have approached the Magistrate and file the complaint. It is further submitted that, admittedly, there is a civil dispute between the parties and a partition suit with a prayer for declaration which is filed by the petitioners is pending. That being the case, the petitioners having a right over the property concerned cannot be blamed for criminal trespass when they visit the property. It is also submitted that there is no injunction order passed by the civil Court against them. It is further submitted that, the entire complaint made against the petitioners is a motivated compliant and an attempt to give a criminal colour for a civil dispute and is filed with the sole intention of demoralizing the petitioners from effectively prosecuting their civil suit. It is also submitted that the order of cognizance taken by the trial Court is without application of mind as it is not a speaking order. On the said ground, it is prayed that the petition be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1-State and learned counsel for respondent no.2 justify the order passed by the trial Court and pray for dismissal of the petition. It is contended that the petitioners themselves in criminal petition admitted as to ownership of the property of respondent no.2 over the property concerned. It is also submitted that the petitioners themselves admitted that they visited the property on 20.04.2014. It shows that the petitioners entered the property without authorization and are guilty of criminal trespass and it is further submitted that very admission gives credence to the allegation of petitioners threatening guards of respondent no.2-Company, which is the owner of the property. 5. Perusal of the private complaint filed by respondent no.2 reveals that they indeed approached the jurisdictional police with a complaint against the petitioners but the complaint was not accepted, which constrained them to file a private complaint. 5. Perusal of the private complaint filed by respondent no.2 reveals that they indeed approached the jurisdictional police with a complaint against the petitioners but the complaint was not accepted, which constrained them to file a private complaint. As there were allegations of criminal trespass, cheating and threats held out to the employees of respondent no.2-Company by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation by the jurisdictional Police. There is no error on part of the learned Magistrate in doing so. After investigation, the jurisdictional Police have concluded that the petitioners cannot be charged with the offence of cheating and have sought to charge them under Sections 143, 144, 147, 447 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. 6. The aforementioned Sections read as under: " 143. Punishment. —Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." " 144. Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon. —Whoever, being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." " 147. Punishment for rioting. —Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." " 447. Punishment for criminal trespass. 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 hundred rupees, or with both." " 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. —Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. Punishment for criminal intimidation. —Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. —and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. " 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. —If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence." 7. The question that now arises for consideration under the admitted facts and the allegations made against the petitioners is that, the police report alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences under aforementioned Sections can be sustained or not. 8. Admittedly, there is a suit for partition as well as declaration in respect of the property which is filed by the petitioners herein are concerned. Under the said circumstances, the petitioners cannot be charged with criminal trespass on to the property inspite of they admitting that they have visited the said property. Hence, the charge under Section 447 of IPC against the petitioners becomes unsustainable. 9. Insofar as it relates to the petitioners forming an unlawful assembly and rioting on the property and threatening the guards and other employees of respondent no.2-Company, the same is a matter of evidence. The investigation material reveals that employees and guards of respondent no.2-Company have spoken as to the petitioners entering the property along with macchu and donne and threatening them. The investigation material reveals that employees and guards of respondent no.2-Company have spoken as to the petitioners entering the property along with macchu and donne and threatening them. Whether the petitioners really intended the same or not is a matter of trial and whether they in fact entered the premises with dangerous weapons and threatened them is also a matter of trial. That cannot be examined by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 10. Insofar as it relates to the order of taking cognizance by the trial Court being a non speaking order, it is always advisable for the trial Courts to pass a speaking order, wherein one can gather the reason as to why the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused. In the instant case, though the trial Court has stated that it has perused the charge sheet and the contents of it and it satisfied by the same and hence is taking cognizance, it was required to elaborate on the same. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, setting aside the order of the trial Court only on the said ground and remanding the matter back will only waste the time of the Court, as the relevant materials are placed before this Court itself in respect of whether the trial Court erred in taking cognizance of the offences alleged or not and the same has been examined by this Court. 11. Hence, the following: ORDER: i. The petition stands allowed in part. ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.919/2019 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal against the petitioners herein are concerned stand quashed in respect of the offence under Section 447 of IPC. iii. In respect of other offences i.e. 143, 144, 147, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC, the proceedings shall continue. iv. It is needless to state liberty is granted to the petitioners to make such applications before the trial Court including the one for discharge and if the petitioners were to make such an application, the same shall be decided by the trial Court without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. Pending I.As. if any, stand disposed of.