Gujarat High Court
Dalal Vinodbhai Chothmal Shroff (As Per ... vs State Of Gujarat on 19 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 11013 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
DALAL VINODBHAI CHOTHMAL SHROFF (AS PER FIR) BINOD CHOTHMAL
SARAF (ACTUAL NAME)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 19/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for
respondent No.1 - State.
1.1 By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), the applicant seeks
quashing of the FIR registered as CR No.11210046212497 of
2021 with Puna Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable
under Sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506(2) an 120B of the Indian
Penal Code and further proceedings arising thereof.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :
2.1 The complainant is doing business of clothes and
proprietor of V.K.Creation and his friend introduced him to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
accused No.2 stating that he is broker of clothes. The accused
gave guarantee of payment of the goods to be delivered by the
complainant and his father. During 30.06.2018 and 05.03.2019,
on different occasions, complainant sent goods to accused No.1
and accused No.2 was broker in the said transactions. Accused
No.1 paid only Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.23,53,133/- were
outstanding which the accused No.1 was not paying. When the
complainant asked accused No.2 regarding his money, accused
No.2 got angry and told to forget about money and gave threats
to the complainant. The complainant filed the FIR in question
against the accused persons. Hence, the present petition.
3. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
4. Seeking quashment of the questioned FIR whereby offence
under Sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC has
been alleged against the petitioner, learned advocate
Mr.Majmudar argued that role of the present petitioner in the
alleged transaction is that of middleman. He would further
submit that present petitioner was working as broker in the
cloth market and he has introduced not only father Rajkumar
Chiraniya, but his son Ankit Chiraniya. He would further submit
that business between the first informant and Chiraniya family
took place. He would further submit that certain amount was
not paid by Mr.Ankit Chiraniya towards goods sold by the first
informant has given rise to the present FIR. Learned advocate
Mr.Majmudar taking this Court through FIR submits that the
FIR essentially misses essential ingredients of criminal breach of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
trust, cheating or criminal intimidation which may cause alarm
to the life of the first informant. He would further submit that
taking FIR on its face would constitute at the most a civil wrong
and may give cause of action to first informant to recover the
amount of goods sold to the accused Ankit Chirniya. However,
said dispute of civil nature has been given cloak of criminal
texture. Therefore, looking to the facts of the case while referring
to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Naresh Kumar
and another vs. State of Karnataka and another - 2024 INSC
196 as well as in case of Randheer Singh vs. State of UP and
others - Live Law 2021 SC 574, learned advocate
Mr.Majmudar would submit that allowing FIR to trial would be
absurdity and harassment and therefore, petition may be
allowed to quash and set aside for charge of criminal breach of
trust and cheating.
4.1 As far as offence of criminal intimidation is concerned,
learned advocate Mr.Majmudar referred to the judgment of
coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ronak Ashokbhai
Kedia vs. State of Gujarat and another, being Criminal Misc.
Application No.4145 of 2012, to submit that essential
ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation is that prosecution
must establish that accused had intention to cause alarm to life
of complainant. Mere threats given by the accused to the
complainant would not establish intention to cause alarm to the
life of the complainant. Upon above submissions, he would
submit to allow this petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
5. Learned APP Mr.Soham Joshi on the other hand would
submit that petitioner played active role in commission of the
offence. He has given promise to the first informant about
business and upon such promise, first informant has entrsuted
the property to Ankit Chiraniya but later Mr.Ankit Chiraniya did
not pay the amount of goods sold to the first informant. In these
circumstances, prima facie case of criminal breach of trust and
cheating are made out. He would further submit that whether
any amount is outstanding to the accused or not as per the
Annexure-A is the issue of trial and can be adjudged during the
trial. Learned APP further submits that it is not a fit case where
Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to thwart the
prosecution and to scuttle the FIR at threshold. Upon above
submissions, learned APP submits to dismiss the present
petition.
6. The interim order is passed by the coordinate Bench of this
Court on 15.11.2021 as under :
"1. Heard Mr. PP Majmudar, learned advocate for the
petitioner.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner prays for
quashing of the FIR registered with Una Police Station,
Dist.: Surat, for the offences mentioned therein.
3. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate would submit that no
offence as alleged in the FIR have been committed by the
petitioner and allegations levelled in the FIR are
absolutely false and baseless.
4. A bare perusal of the FIR and material placed on
record, would show that the alleged offence has been
committed during the period between 30.06.2018 to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
20.10.2021. The petitioner was agent for the alleged
transaction and has no any privity of contract with
respondent no.2. The dispute is purely a civil in nature
i.e. recovery of sale proceeds. Thus, this Court is of the
considered view that the dispute between the parties at
the most can be said to be a civil dispute, which has
been given a colour of criminal proceedings.
5. Thus, matter deserves consideration. Let notice be
issued to the respondents returnable on 14.03.2022.
Learned APP waives service of notice for respondent
State. Meanwhile and till the returnable date, the
investigation may continue, however, there shall be no
chargesheet be filed without prior permission of this
Court qua present petitioner. The trial Court may proceed
further against co-accused in accordance with law."
7. On perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that even at
threshold this Court believed absence of privity of contract
between the first informant and complainant. This Court has
also observed that dispute is purely of civil nature and recovery
of proceeds have been intended to be made through criminal
proceedings by giving the proceedings of civil nature, a criminal
texture.
8. Plain reading of the FIR demonstrates that first informant
has pleaded to recover the sale proceeds. Even as per the words
of the first informant, transaction between first informant and
Ankit Chiraniya is commercial breach of trust and cheating.
Section 405 defines the criminal breach of trust. Essentially
entrustment of property or dominion over the property and
dishonestly misappropriation of property or to convert the same
for personal use of that property or dishonestly use or dispose of
the property are essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust.
So what could be noticed that once the property is handed over
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
to the accused and he dishonestly misappropriate the property
or convert the property for personal use, it is criminal breach of
trust. Punishment of which is stated in Section 406 of IPC.
Section 415 of IPC defines cheating. Deceiving any person
fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property is the main
plank of the definition of cheating. Punishment of such cheating
is stated in Section 420. Section 409 defines criminal breach of
trust by the merchant or agent.
9. Going by the facts of the case emerging from FIR, the
transaction is not more than a commercial transaction. Certain
amount of goods were sold to Ankit Chiraniya whereby present
petitioner played a role of middleman. His commission was fixed
to 2% of the total transaction. Mr.Chiraniya having received the
goods did not realized the sale proceed. He used criminal
machinery to recover money. Therefore, essentially it is a case of
civil nature. Although power of High Court under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. is to be used rarely or sparingly, in Paramjeet Batra
vs. State of Uttarakhand - (2013) 11 SCC 673, Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that the High Court must not hesitate in
quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a
civil nature. The judgment in case of Paramjeet Batra (supra)
was referred to in judgment of Randheer Singh (supra), whereby
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be
held to be a weapon of harassment. Also in case of Usha
Chakraborty and another vs. State of Bengal and another -
2023 SCC Online SC 90, again referring to the judgment of
Paramjeet Batra (supra), it was held that essentially dispute of
civil nature if given a cloak of criminal offence, no such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
proceedings be entertained, but be terminated by exercising
inherent powers of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. After reviewing all
above judgments in case of Naresh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court quashed the FIR which has given dispute essentially
of civil nature, cloak of criminal offence. Relevant para of the
said judgment are as under :
"5. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered
view that this is a case where the inherent powers
should have been exercised by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the
powers are there to stop the abuse of the process and to
secure the ends of justice.
6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized
that although the inherent powers of a High Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be
exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate
in quashing such criminal proceedings which are
essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This
power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose
of preventing abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a
complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends
upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether
essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or
not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint
disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal
texture. But the High Court must see whether a
dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a
cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil
remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has
happened in this case, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of the court." (emphasis supplied)
Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra),
this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot
be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In
Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal &
Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet
Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute
which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak
of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be
quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Essentially, the present dispute between the parties
relates to a breach of contract. A mere breach of contract,
by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for
criminal offence in every case, as held by this Court in
Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2023) 5 SCC
360. Similarly, dealing with the distinction between the
offence of cheating and a mere breach of contractual
obligations, this Court, in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State
of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, has held that every breach
of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating,
and it is required to be shown that the accused had
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making
the promise.
8. In the case at hand, the dispute between the parties
was not only essentially of a civil nature but in this case
the dispute itself stood settled later as we have already
discussed above. We see no criminal element here and
consequently the case here is nothing but an abuse of
the process. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside
the order of the High Court dated 02.12.2020. The
criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.113 of 2017
will hereby stand quashed."
10. In view of above, the offence under Sections 406, 409 and
420 of IPC in the present case are not established. So far as
offence under Sections 504 and 506(2) of IPC are concerned,
since criminal intimidation and intentional insult has been
defined in Section 503, 504 and 506(2) of IPC which reads as
under :
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
"503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens
another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or reputation 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 threat, commits
criminal intimidation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the
reputation of any deceased person in whom the person
threatened is interested, is within this section.
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults,
and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending
or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will
cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any
other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--
Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--
and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to
cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause
an offence punishable with death or 1 [imprisonment for
life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years,
or with fine, or with both."
11. Section 503 defines the criminal intimidation. It consists of
two parts. The first part refers to the act of threatening another
with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person
or reputation of anyone in which that person is interested and
second part refers to the intent with which the threatening is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
carried out. However, second part is also consists of two
categories, one to cause alarm to the person threatened and the
second 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 threat.
Moreover, the threat must be communicated or uttered with the
intention of it being communicated to the person threatened with
the object of influencing his mind. To constitute the offence of
criminal intimidation, the threat must be of that type which is
capable of being put into execution by the accused so as to
cause alarm to the complainant. Mere boasting of causing harm
such as a threat to kill, by itself is not a criminal intimidation.
11.1 Section 504 comprises of ingredients viz. (a) intentional
insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the
person insulted and (c) the accused must be intended or known
that such provocation would cause another to break public
peace or to commit any other offence. In Fiona Shrikhande vs.
State of Maharashtra and another - AIR 2014 SC 957, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"The intentional insult must be of such a degree that
should provoke a person to break the public peace or to
commit any other offence. The person who intentionally
insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will
give provocation to any other person and such
provocation will cause to break the public peace or to
commit any other offence, in such a situation, the
ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the
essential elements constituting the offence is that there
should have been an act or conduct amounting to
intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused
abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by
itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
12. Yet in another case in Mohammad Wajid and another vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others - 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC
72172, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"24. An offence under Section 503 has following
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.
2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act 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.
25. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally
insulting a person and thereby provoking such person
insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a
person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted
may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public
peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may
not come within the purview of the section. But, the
words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an
intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit
a breach of the public peace or to commit any other
offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is
of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of
events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to
commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken
away from the purview of the Section merely because
the insulted person did not actually break the peace or
commit any offence having exercised selfcontrol or
having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In
judging whether particular abusive language is attracted
by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the
ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
abusive language used and not what the complainant
actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or
cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary
general nature of the abusive language that is the test
for considering whether the abusive language is an
intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to
commit a breach of the peace and not the particular
conduct or temperament of the complainant.
26. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may
not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of
Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary
element of being likely to incite the person insulted to
commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other
element of the accused intending to provoke the person
insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that
the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the
peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be
decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of
that case and there cannot be a general proposition that
no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he
merely uses abusive language against the complainant.
In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom
LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
pointed out that:-
"To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is
sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the
other party to lose his temper and say or do something
violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as
well as deeds." (Emphasis supplied)
27. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it
clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation.
Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it
must be established that the accused had an intention to
cause alarm to the complainant.
28. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more
particularly, considering the nature of the allegations
levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may
probably could be said to have been disclosed but not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with
respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 of
the IPC can also be looked at from a different
perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has
stated is that abusive language was used by the
accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form
of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential
elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence
under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have
been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult.
Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is
necessary to know what those words were in order to
decide whether the use of those words amounted to
intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not
possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional
insult is present.
29. However, as observed earlier, the entire case put up
by the first informant on the face of it appears to be
concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to
the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of
an FIR in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The parameters
are:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge." In our
opinion, the present case falls within the parameters
Nos.1, 5 and 7 resply referred to above.
30. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get
the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially
on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR
with care and a little more closely. We say so because
once the complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the
averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they
disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments and, if
need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226
of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the
stage of a case but is empowered to take into account
the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take
for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background of
such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as
alleged."
13. Reference to the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this
Court is also worthy in Ronak Ashokbhai Kedia (supra),
wherein it is held as under :
"12. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear
that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before
an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must
be established that an accused had an intention to
cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by
the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the
complainant, but with a view to deterring him from
interfering with the work of construction of the wall,
which was undertaken by the accused applicant, would
not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. In the
entire FIR, there is no whisper of any allegation
that the threats which were administered actually
caused any alarm to the first informant and he
felt actually threatened."
14. In background of above settled provisions of law, if we refer
the FIR on hand, none of its contents essentially proves that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
there was intention on the part of the accused to cause alarm to
the life of the complainant. What is state in the FIR is that
accused got excited and uttered the words "What money are you
talking about. Once you stopped sending goods, then forget about
the money. If you again call me or Ankit Chiraniya about money
then I have many contacts . You will be disappeared and you will
lose your life.". This words at the most demonstrates boasting
but by no means such words constitute or establish criminal
intimidation made out by the accused with intention to cause
alarm to the life of the complainant. Mere some words spoken for
deterring the complainant itself is not a reason to believe that
the offence under Section 504 an 506(2) of IPC are established.
15. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B. Bhajanlal & ors.,
AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the
proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the
code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the
F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence
and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11013/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or
complaint are sO absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where, there is an express legal bare engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the
institution and/or where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with malafide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
16. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds. It prima
facie appears that complainant has used the criminal
proceedings as weapon to settled the score in a dispute which is
essentially of civil nature. The Court cannot permit the first
informant to use criminal proceedings as weapon to recover sale
proceeds. Resultantly, the FIR registered as CR
No.11210046212497 of 2021 with Puna Police Station, Surat for
the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 504,
506(2) an 120B of the Indian Penal Code and further
proceedings arising thereof are quashed qua the petitioner. Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
