AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
Since, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed with the self-same prayer in respect of the same case, hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.
These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.275 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the defendants in Title Suit No.196 of 2009 of the Court of Sub-Judge-II, Ranchi. The complainant adduced evidence against them on behalf of the plaintiff of that suit and the petitioners met complainant in Court and threatened him to adduce false evidence in their favour. The complainant did not adduce evidence in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners issued a notice to the complainant demanding compensation of Rs.7 crores.
On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners are false and during the course of the cross-examination of the complainant as a witness in Title Suit No.196 of 2009, he has stated that the petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No.272 of 2020 is a tout and agent of the petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No.271 of 2020 and further stated that the petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No.271 of 2020 namely Smt. Namita Nath Shahdeo engaged herself in prostitution at Sonagachi, Kolkata and the petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No.271 of 2020 namely Roshan Nath Shahdeo who claims to be the son of the Deepak Nath Shahdeo never owes any relationship with Deepak Nath Shahdeo. It is next submitted that the said allegations made by the complainant are false, wild, made with ulterior motive so as to defame the petitioners and their witnesses in the eyes of persons knowing them. It is next submitted that the petitioners issued legal notice to the complainant calling upon the complainant to tender unconditional apology for the defamatory statement made by him else appropriate legal action will be taken against him. It is then submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, therefore, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then both the offences punishable under Section 323 & 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, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:-
1.Accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim;
2.The accused did so with the intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim.
Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim and in the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
So far as the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207, paragraph no.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.” Had the occasion to consider the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of threatening the complainant to his personal reputation or property or to the personal reputation or property of another in whom the complainant was entrusted and there is no allegation that the petitioners threatened the complainant with intent to cause alarm to the complainant and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that 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.
In view of the discussions made above as neither the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of these criminal proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and these are the fit cases where the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-cum-J.M.-V, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.275 of 2019, be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-cum-J.M.-V, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.275 of 2019, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.
In the result, these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, is allowed.