Gangadhara vs State of Karnataka

Rathnakala, J.—This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 22/8/2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bellary, in SC No. 83/2014.

Briefly stated, the petitioners herein along with the first accused were arrayed as accused persons in Crime No. 15/2014 registered by the Gudekote police station in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 506 read with 34 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet is also filed. At the time of framing the charges submission was made on behalf of accused No. 1 that he had no objection to frame the charges. The petitioners herein being an accused Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that there is no material to proceed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, after giving audience to rival submissions, passed the impugned order holding that ''there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C."

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure, while taking me through the complaint averments and also statement of all the witnesses submits, that absolutely there is no material against these petitioners for offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC and petitioners are liable to be discharged of all the offences including Section 506 of I.P.C. also. In respect of offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC, no material is found by the learned Sessions Judge.

Learned H.C.G.P. supports the view taken by learned Sessions Judge.

In the light of the above, the sole point that arises for consideration is-

"Whether there is any material for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC?" 6. The averment in the complaint dated 17.02.2014, is to the effect that the first accused kidnapped the complaint to a plantation at Chikkamagalur and they were working there as coolies and were allotted one room. They stayed there for 25 days. During this period she was sexually exploited by the first accused. On 15/2/2014, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 (brothers of accused No. 1) approached them and brought them to Shivamogga to the house of their elder sister and accused No. 3, took leave of them, at 11.00 am. The accused No. 2 and herself proceeded towards Kudligi bus stand; at 4.20 a.m., at Kudligi bus sand, the first petitioner while taking leave of her threatened her not to disclose the fact that he has brought her to the village.

In her further statement recorded on 18/2/2014 she stated that the first petitioner left her at Kudligi bus stand on 15/2/2014 at 4.20 p.m. and she has lodged complaint on 17/2/2014 against Shivaraj @ Shivu (A1), who committed forceful rape on her, Gangadhara (A2) and Chindanda (A3) who put threat to her life. The parents of the victim girl have stated to the effect that the prosecutrix was threatened not disclose the matter. However, they do not claim that they witnessed or heard the petitioners threatening the victim. Except using the word (threat), in the complaint, there is no other incriminating material against these petitioners.

Section 506 of IPC, which is vexed in this petition is a penal provision for commission of offence of criminal intimidation as contemplated in Section 503 of IPC which reads as under:--

"Criminal Intimidation Section 503 - Whoever threatens another with any injury to his of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation." 9. Hence, to attract punishment under 506 of IPC, following are the essentials:--

"1. Threatening a person with any injury;

i) to his person, reputation or property; or

ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.

The threat must be with intent;

i) to cause alarm to that person; or

ii) to cause that person to do any act in which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or

iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

But, none of the above ingredients can be assumed or presumed by the bald word (threatened) which appears in the complaint averments.

The learned Sessions Judge has misdirected himself in drawing inference that there are materials for him to proceed against these petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. In that view of the matter, proceeding with the trial on the basis of such vague and indefinite allegations is nothing but a futile exercise and abuse of the process of law. Not only there are no materials against the petitioners in respect of the offence under Section 376 of IPC, but, also there are no material against them under 506 of IPC, hence, petitioners are entitled to be discharged for the offence alleged against them.

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22/8/2014 passed in SC No. 83/2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bellary, is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to be discharged of the offence under Section 506 of IPC also.