AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.N. Biswal, J.—In this CRLMC the Petitioners assail the order dated 6.3.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar I.C.C. No. 643 of 2006 taking cognizance of the offence u/s 506 of I.P.C. against them.
The case of the complainant as depicted in the complaint petition is that she is a claimant of 1/5th share of the building standing over plot No. 168-A, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. On 5.9.2005 she found it to have been occupied by Carrier Launcher (P) Ltd. without her knowledge. So she requested the said Company over telephone to vacate the premises. In response to it, the complainant was informed that she should contact Mr. Biswarup Kar, (accused-Petitioner No. 1) Centre in-charge of the Company in this regard. Accordingly, she talked to him, but as his talk was not palatable, she issued a registered pleader notice on 25.9.2005 to the Carrier Launcher Private Ltd. requesting to vacate the premises with a copy to Mr. Biswarup Kar. In response to the said notice Sh. Om Punia, (accused-Petitioner No. 2) Manager-Personnel, Admin and Legal, Carrier Launcher Private Ltd., New Delhi replied that opp. party No. 1 might have taken the building on rent. Again the complainant-Opp. party wrote to Petitioner No. 2 to withdraw their bill board from the building and its compound under intimation to her within 15 days, but to no avail. So she was constrained to send a pleader notice on 15.12.2005 to accused-Petitioner No. 2 with a copy thereof to accused-Petitioner No. 1, in response to which the latter vide his letter dated 20.1.2006 criminally intimidated her. Being alarmed by the said letter, the complainant lodged an F.I.R. at Kharavela Nagar Police Station on 9.2.2002, but to no avail. Again Petitioner No. 2 sent another notice to the complainant-Opp. party on 14.2.2006 through his advocate to recover Rs. 50 lakh from her as damage and to take action against her if she continued to make any further correspondence with him. Because of this the complainant was criminally intimidated and alarmed.
On perusal of the letter dated 14.2.2006 (Annexure-6) it is found that the complainant-Opp. party sent notice after notice to accused-Petitioner No. 2 in spite of informing her that the Company had not taken the house in question on rent and that it had no branch at Bhubaneswar. So accused-Petitioner No. 2 called upon the complainant to make payment of Rs. 50 lakh within 15 days of receipt of the notice because of mental harassment caused to him; failing which he intimated the complainant that he would proceed against her for legal remedies. She was further informed that she was to pay Rs. 5,500/ - to him towards legal fees and expenses.
Admittedly as per the complaint case, the complainant-Opp.party claims 1/5th share from the premises, which was taken on rental basis by accused-Petitioner No. 1. A civil suit is pend between the complainant-Opp. party and her brothers before the Fast Track Court No. 3, Bhubaneswar in respect of the premises in question. As found from the record the complainant-Opp. party sent several letters/notices to Petitioner No. 2-Company including Annexure-4 wherein she threatened to claim damage of Rs. 5 lakhs. Accused-Petitioner No. 2 called upon the complainant to pay damage of Rs. 50 lakh for unnecessary harassment. Though this might have alarmed the complainant, still then the offence u/s 506 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted against Petitioner No. 2 because there is justifiable cause for giving such a letter. Similarly, Petitioner No. 1 in his letter dated 20.1.2006 intimated the complainant that the Carrier Launcher India Private Ltd. is not a party to the tenancy agreement. He further wrote that in case the complainant-Opp.party continued writing letters without annexing any document supporting her claim, he would be forced to take legal action against her. The complainant-Opp.party continued writing letter after letter and even threatened accused-Petitioner No. 1 to claim damages. In shape of reply he warned the complainant-Opp.party not to continue writing such letter without annexing documents in support of her claim. Further he warned that if she wrote any such letter in future he would be compelled to take legal action against her. This would also not amount to criminal intimidation.
Therefore, under such facts and circumstances I am of the view that there is no ground for proceeding against accused-Petitioner u/s 506 of I.P.C. and as such the impugned order of taking cognizance thereunder by the S.D.J.M., Bhubanes is hereby stands quashed.
Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed.