AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aruna Jagadeesan, J.—This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 540/2005 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.
VI, Coimbatore.
The 1st Respondent Police has filed a final report against the petitioner on 17.11.204 before the learned Magistrate on the basis of a
complainant given by the 2nd Respondent herein for the alleged offence u/s 506(i) of IPC and the same is pending trial in C.C. No. 540/2005.
The allegation against the petitioner is that on 08.10.2004 at about 16.10. hours, at the upstairs of the House at No. 53, Damu Nagar,
Puliakulam, Coimbatore, the petitioner is said to have been entered into the house and threatened the 2nd respondent and her son Sridharan and
daughter Subhashini that they should vacate the house within 10 days or otherwise he would put them all in jail and he would close every one of
them.
The petitioner is none other than the husband of the 2nd respondent and the house, in which the occurrence is said to have taken place, is his
own house. According to the petitioner, he was the Managing Director of two companies namely (i) Puduthottam Estate (1943) Limited and (ii)
Woodbriar Estate Limited and was holding maximum number of shares and as such he was controlling the companies as well as the allied business.
While so, he was forced and coerced to hand over signed blank share transfer forms to his daughter Subhashini, when she threatened that she
would commit suicide, if the shares are not transferred in her favour. The petitioner would submit that he went to London with the 2nd respondent
to sort out the matrimonial dispute of his daughter Gajalakshmi. During his stay at London, the 2nd Respondent is said to have created a forged
power of attorney dated 03.09.2002 in favour of his son Sridharan and took away the entire control of the Companies. He would further submit
that on his return from London, he was taken to a rented house and was illegally confined from 26.12.2002 to 10.1.2003 and through his servant
maid he came to know that the control of the companies had been snatched away from him. He would further submit that he escaped from the said
place and lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.
Thereafter several litigations were initiated by the Petitioner as well as the 2nd Respondent and a Company Petition is also pending before the
Company Law Board and Civil Court at Valparai and as well as at Coimbatore, High Court and Honourable Supreme Court.
Mr. M.V.Ashok Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case has been foisted against the petitioner by the 2nd
Respondent with a mala fide intention to achieve their evil desire and to desist him from taking effective steps to retrieve his property and to harass
him to the maximum level. It was urged by the learned senior counsel that there are disputes pending between the Petitioner and the 2nd
Respondent before the civil court and criminal court from the year 2002 onwards with regard to dispossession of the control of the companies and
other properties and a company petition is also pending at the instance of the Petitioner in CP. No. 53/2004 before the Company Law Board and
in the said back ground the allegations made in the FIR is tainted with mala fide and intended only to harass him. He would submit in the said view
of the matter that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner would be an abuse of process of law.
It is strenuously contended by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner that even if the allegation in the FIR is taken at their face value and
accepted in its entirety, considering the relationship of the parties and dispute pending between them for so many years, the act of the Petitioner
cannot be considered as deliberate and an intentional one. The learned senior counsel contended that the Petitioner ought not to have been
proceeded with the criminal Prosecution u/s 506(i) of IPC, even assuming that he has caused harm to the 2nd Respondent, as it was very trivial.
He would invoke the general exception made in Section 95 of IPC in support of his contention.
On the other hand, Mr. Sivam Sivanand Raj, the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent would contend that the final report and the statement
of the available witnesses clearly make out the ingredients of Section 506(i) of IPC as against the Petitioner and in such view of the matter, it is of
no consequence to contend that the complaint was enmical and guilty of mala fides and the FIR/Charge sheet cannot be quashed merely on the
ground of mala fide. He placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
i. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and Others, .
ii. Aravindakshan and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Another,
iii. State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and others,
iv. Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and Others,
v. State of HMOP. No. v. Pirthi Chand and Anr. 1996 SCC 37
In this case, there is no dispute that the misunderstanding between the husband and the wife had been there for so many years, which had led to
the initiation of criminal proceedings against each other and there is love lost between the parties. The severity of the strained relationship could be
seen from the cases filed against each other in different forums.
The only question taken for determination is as to whether Section 95 of IPC could be invoked on the facts and circumstances of the case, as
contended by the learned senior counsel. Therefore, I am not inclined to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR nor
as to whether the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. Therefore, the citations referred to by the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent
are not adverted to, as there is no quarrel over the position of law that if the allegations set out in the complaint constitute the offence as alleged,
then the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed by exercising the inherent powers u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is seen from the FIR that the alleged commission of act against the Petitioner is that he entered into the family house at Door No. 53, Damu
Nagar, Coimbatore and threatened the 2nd Respondent and her children that they should vacate the house within 10 days or otherwise he would
put them all in jail and he would close every one of them.
The expression ""harm"" has not been defined in the IPC in its dictionary meaning it connotes hurt; injury; damage; impairment; moral wrong or
evil. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the harm caused to the
2nd Respondent and her children was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
In the case of Noble Mohandass v. State 1989 Cri. LJ 669, this Court has held that to attract an offence u/s 506(i) of IPC, the threat should
be a real one and not just mere a word when person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when person at whom threat is launched
does not feel threatened actually.
In yet another decision reported in the case of Saraswathi and Another Vs. State, , this Court has held that asking a person not to work in a
private garden and threatening that person to go away from the garden would not satisfy the requirement of Section 506(i) of IPC.
Section 95 of IPC is one under general exception in Chapter 4. It provides thus:
Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so
slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
Section 95 is intended to prevent penalization of negligible wrongs or of offence of trivial character. Whether an act, which amounts to an
offence is trivial would depend upon the nature of the injury, the position of the parties, knowledge or intention with which the offending act is done
and the relevant circumstances. There are innumerable acts without performing of which men cannot live together in the Society and acts which all
men constantly do and suffer.
In a decision rendered in the case of Devendrappa and Another Vs. The State of Mysore, , the Petitioners were alleged to have been
trespassed into the land of the neighbour and caused a minor injury to the owner and his servant. It was held that even assuming that the
Prosecution is wholly true, the crime that the Petitioners committed was so trivial it falls within the scope of Section 95 of IPC. It is observed as
follows:
The law does not in this section concern itself with matters too trivial to demand its notice about which men in theirary frame of mind do not
complain. As a matter of fact, it is common experience that men living in society must suffer some inconveniences and transgressions without which
no society is possible. That being so, it would be travesty of law to deal with such trivial matters as if they were crimes. It is because of this the law
rightly exempted such trivial actions from the category of crimes. A close examination of the provisions of this section shows that even the
intentional causing of harm specified in that section is excused because of its triviality. The word ''harm'' no doubt means injury of any kind,
including injury to mind, body or property. It provides that in the normal circumstances even if the injury to mind, body or property is caused and if
the harm is so trivial, no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of it.
In the instant case, the Petitioner has been complained of with rude behavior and had caused a threat to his family members, stating that they
should vacate the house within 10 days or otherwise he would put them all in jail and he would close every one of them. The harm complained in
this case in my considered opinion is of so trivial, as such incident ordinarily happens in most of the families, that too when the relationship between
the spouses got strained due to various factors.
It is pertinent to point out that the Petitioner has been kept away from the house and his properties, against which, there are several civil
disputes pending between the parties. He is also said to have lodged a criminal complaint before the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore. As he has been kept away from the house, apparently he got annoyed which had led him to go to his house
and express his anguish, making such utterances to his wife and son. Considering the nature of the act, relationship between the parties and other
related circumstances, I am of the considered view that the harm caused to the complainant is trivial in nature and the materials collected justified
the conclusion that the injury was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper placed in the circumstances in which the complainant and
her children were placed may not reasonably complain for that harm. Even assuming that the Prosecution case is wholly true, the crime that the
Petitioner had committed is so trivial that it falls within the scope of Section 95 of IPC.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned complaint in C.C. No. 540 of 2005 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed and this
Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.