The Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order of taking cognizance and order of issue of process dated 13.10.2020 passed by the J.M.F.C. Court, in the criminal case for the offences punishable under sections 448, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC. The Court observed that in order to satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of injury to the person, reputation, or property of the complainant by the accused, which should be with an intention to cause alarm to that person or cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3, as per the F.I.R. and the charge sheet. On the strength of the complaint filed by respondent No.2, the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and after completion of the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences. Thus, jurisdictional J.M.F.C. took cognizance of the complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No.492 of 2020 and issued process against accused Nos.1 to 3 to face the trial for the aforesaid offences. Taking exception to the same, these petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings pending before the trial Court.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 has filed a false case against them and it is purely civil in nature. The order of taking cognizance and issue of process against the petitioners is against the facts and material placed on record and the same deserves to be quashed. Further, the order of taking cognizance and issue of process against the petitioners is against the settled proposition of law and criminal jurisprudence and the learned Magistrate has issued process against the petitioners without application of mind. He contended that, on perusal of the entire charge-sheet material, the alleged offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC are not made out.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the charge-sheet material clearly discloses the commission of aforesaid offences and the veracity of allegation against the petitioners would be considered only after a full-fledged trial and at this stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Investigating Officer has not stated the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC. Therefore, in the case on hand, ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC are not made out. Further, the Court said that in order to satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of injury to the person, reputation, or property of the complainant by the accused, which should be with an intention to cause alarm to that person or cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat.
The Court observed that in order to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation, there must be a threat with the intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to do any act which is not legally bound to do. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to make him do, or omit to do any act, is not sufficient to bring the act within the definition of criminal intimidation. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC are not made out against the petitioners.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the order dated 13-10-2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in the criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal, 1860, is hereby quashed.
Case Title: Sugurappa @ Sugurayya Swami & Ors. vs The State of Karnataka & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Venkatesh Naik T
Case no.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201248 OF 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. R. S. Lagali
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Sharanabasappa M. Patil
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
