AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
Though the opposite party No.2 has put in his appearance through a lawyer 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners including the order dated 02.09.2023 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.7331 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 being the brother and the petitioner No.2 being the father of the wife of the complainant, took Rs.1,00,000/- as friendly loan from the complainant and returned Rs.3,000/- but did not return the remaining amount of Rs.97,000/- and upon the complainant demanding the rest amount, told the complainant to forget the money or else they will implicate the complainant in a false case and also threatened to kill the complainant. It is the admitted case of the complainant that his wife has instituted a case involving the offence punishable under Section 498A against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manik Taneja & Another vs. State of Karnataka & Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 and submits that in para-12 therein, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of “criminal intimidation”. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of 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-25 of which reads 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.”
and submits that in the absence of any intention to cause alarm to the complainant, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.
It is further submitted that the case is next fixed to 10.09.2026 for evidence before charge and charge has not yet been framed in the concerned case. It is then submitted that the tone and tenor of the complaint goes to show that the same has been filed with the purpose of wreaking vengeance; only because his wife has instituted Lakhisarai P.S. Case No.360 of 2023 against him involving inter alia the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., 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, this Court finds that the only allegation that has been made against the petitioners is that the petitioners are not paying a part of the friendly loan taken by them from the complainant who is admittedly the son-in-law of the petitioner No.2 and the brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1. There is allegation that the petitioners are threatening by saying to forget about the money lent by the complainant to them and threatened the complainant to take away his life but even assuming for the sake of arguments the allegations against the petitioners made by the complainant is true in their entirety still the same lacks the intention of the petitioners to cause alarm to the complainant rather it is apparent that in view of the acrimony caused because of institution of criminal case by the wife of the complainant against him inter alia involving the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the complaint has been filed; basically for the purpose of wreaking vengeance.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that keeping in view the entire facts of the case, as even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true still the same is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code; therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, it is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners including the order dated 02.09.2023 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.7331 of 2023, be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners including the order dated 02.09.2023 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.7331 of 2023, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.