AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 423 of 2022 as also the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XXI, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 6791 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XXI, Ranchi dismissed the Complaint Case No. 6791 of 2022 in exercise of the power under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner filed the said Complaint Case No. 6791 of 2022 alleging therein that he entered into an agreement for sale of landed property with the opposite party No.2 after taking advance amount of Rs.8,50,000/-. The time period stipulated in the agreement was six months but even after expiry of the stipulated period of six months, the opposite party No.2 did not pay the remaining amount. The petitioner returned back the amount to the opposite party No.2 but the opposite party No.2 did not retain the same and again, sent back the same to the Bank Account of the petitioner. It is further alleged therein that the opposite party No.2 came to the house of the petitioner and misbehaved with him, threatened to kill him and also threatened of dire consequences if the petitioner will not sell the land in respect of the agreement of sale was entered into between the parties.
The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XXI, Ranchi after taking into consideration the material available in the record, did not find any material to issue the process against the proposed accused person of the complaint and dismissed the complaint petition. On being aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XXI, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 6791 of 2022, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 423 of 2022; which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi by the impugned order dated 26.04.2023.
The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi considered that the proposed accused person of the complaint case has instituted Original Suit No. 27 of 2022 against the petitioner with a direction to the petitioner and his wife to execute the sale deed in favour of him; in terms of the agreement. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi also took note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Punjab National Bank & Others vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha reported in AIR 1992 SC 1815, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi after going through the materials available in the record did not find any material to constitute prima facie case against the proposed accused person of the complaint and dismissed the Criminal Revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below failed to consider that the proposed accused person of the complaint case who is the opposite party No.2 herein, threatened the complainant who is the petitioner herein, of dire consequences. It is next submitted that the learned courts below ought to have come to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that even if the entire allegations made against the opposite party No.2 are considered to be true in their entirety, still no offence is made out against the opposite party No.2. It is next submitted that there being no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi or the order impugned before him; this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahmood Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2023) 15 SCC 488, para-13 of which reads as under:-
“13.In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.” (Emphasis supplied)
that when the complaint has been drafted with skill and dexterity, the Court can read between the lines as to find out actually what happened.
Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the dispute between the parties arises out of an agreement for sale.
The complainant wants to wriggle out of the agreement by returning back the advance of the consideration amounts taken by him but the proposed accused person of the complaint is insisting upon the performance of the contract. The undisputed fact remains that the suit has been filed. In order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients have been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraph No.25 of which read as under :-
‘’25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal&Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following:
“… The prosecution must prove:
(i)That the accused threatened some person.
(ii)That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested;
(iii)That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.”(emphasis supplied)
A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.’’
Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the proposed accused person of the complaint who is the opposite party No.2 herein, having threatened the complainant with intent to cause alarm to the victim of the offence. In the absence of the essential ingredients; even after the entire allegations made against the opposite party No.2 are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
In the absence of the allegation against the opposite party No.2 of making the complainant to part with any property after deceiving him, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the opposite party No.2 even after the entire allegations made against the opposite party No.2 are considered to be true in their entirety and no other offence is also made out against the opposite party No.2 even after the entire allegations made against the opposite party No.2 are considered to be true in their entirety.
In view of the discussions made above, in the considered opinion of this Court; as no offence is made out against the opposite party No.2 even after the entire allegations made against the opposite party No.2 are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 423 of 2022 or the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XXI, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 6791 of 2022 in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.