Criminal Trespass, Withdrawal of Complaint, and Dispute over the True Amount of a Loan Agreement
According to the investigation file, Mr. Daeng unlawfully entered the land of Mr. Dam. Mr. Dam reported the matter to Mr. Khao, the village headman. Upon Mr. Khao’s intervention, Mr. Daeng ceased the intrusion and withdrew. Mr. Dam then stated that, as the trespass had stopped, he would “not pursue the matter.”
Two months later, Mr. Daeng again trespassed upon Mr. Dam’s land. Mr. Dam reported the incident to Mr. Khao. The public prosecutor, having reviewed the case file, decided to indict Mr. Daeng.
If sitting as the Court, the proper ruling would be that Mr. Dam’s earlier statement-indicating that he would not proceed once the trespass ceased-does not constitute a formal withdrawal of the complaint. It merely reflects a temporary suspension of action. Therefore, the criminal complaint was not extinguished, and the Court should proceed with the trial and render judgment in accordance with the evidence and applicable law (Supreme Court Plenary Decision No. 2016/2500).
In a separate issue, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant executed a loan agreement for 10,000 Baht. The defendant admits signing the agreement but asserts that, lacking collateral, he was required to sign for 10,000 Baht although he actually borrowed only 2,000 Baht. The defendant seeks to adduce evidence to prove that the true loan amount was 2,000 Baht notwithstanding the written instrument stating 10,000 Baht.