DEVKUMAR SURAGBHAI KARPADA vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

The applicant-original accused has filed this

application under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, with the following prayer:

"7 (b) This Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R C.R.No. II- 165/2009 registered on 1.9.2009, at Botad Police Station, District Bhavnagar, against the petitioner for the offence U/Ss. 507 & 114 of Indian Penal Code".

Complaint being FIR C.R.II-165 of 2009 was

registered on 01.09.2009, with the Botad Police

Station.

Perusal of the complaint shows that the

complainant has invoked the provisions of Section 507

of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the

complainant that one Mr. Narendrasinh Mangalsinh

Jadeja, a Contractor at Bhavnagar had threatened him

of dire consequences. The reading of the complaint,

further, shows that the only averment made in the

complaint is that the said contractor had connections

with the accused-applicant herein and through the

Offices of the complainant and the accused, the

contractor indulged in malpractices. The other

averment made in the complaint is that the accused had

called him in his chamber and had threatened him of

dire consequences.

The applicant before this Court had raised the

contention that the complaint does not satisfy the

ingredients of Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code,

inasmuch as there was no anonymous communication, by

which the complainant was intimidated or that there

was no concealment of the name of a person, who had

threatened the complainant. Moreover, it is the case

of the applicant that the ingredients of Section 506

are not attracted.

From the memo of the application, it has been

pointed out that the complaint has been lodged at the

hands of the complainant, in view of the fact that

several show-cause-notices have been issued to the

respondent-original complainant with regard to

discharge of his duties. Such show-cause notices have

been annexed with the application. The grievance

apparently is that the complaint is lodged only with a

view to intimidate the applicant, and therefore, this

case squarely falls in a category of case, where the

complaint has been lodged only to abuse the process of

law.

Having heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for

the applicant and Mr. Yusufkhan Pathan, learned

advocate for respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr.

Himanshu Patel, for respondent No.1., I am of the

opinion that it is apparent that the complaint is

nothing but an abuse of process of law. Moreover,

reading the complaint, it is no case of the

complainant that there was criminal intimidation by an

anonymous caller nor that the person who had

threatened the complainant was concealing his

identity.

Learned APP Mr. Himanshu Paten, contends that the

ingredients of Section 507 have been made out.

According to him, even otherwise though the FIR is

lodged invoking Section 507 of IPC, ultimately, while

the investigation progresses, it could be altered to

one under Section 506(2) of IPC and therefore this

Court should not in exercise of its extraordinary

jurisdiction quash the complaint.

Apparently on reading the complaint, the

ingredients of Section 507 as well Section 506(2) do

not appear to have been satisfied. On reading the

complaint, it is apparent that the complainant has

named one Contractor Narendrasinh Mangalsinh Jadeja.

Therefore, in my opinion, the complaint does not

satisfy the ingredients of the sections invoked. Even

otherwise, looking to the fact that the respondent-

complainant was a recipient of Show-cause-notices at

the hands of the applicant, have a reason to believe

that the complaint was lodged only with a view to

intimidate the applicant. The application is,

therefore, allowed. Hence, the FIR being C.R.II-165 of

2009 registered on 01.09.2009, with the Botad Police

Station, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made

absolute.