Rina Yadav @ Rina Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 8788 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rina Yadav @ Rina Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                        W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024
                                    ----

1. Rina Yadav @ Rina Devi, aged about 54 years, wife of Nageshwar Yadav, resident of 59, Bhamal, Heriajam, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. - Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand

2. Nageshwar Yadav, aged about 66 years, son of Durga Yadav, resident of 59, Beside National Public School, Bhamal Nirsa, Heriajam, P.O. Nirsa, P.S. - Nirsa, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... Petitioners

-- Versus --

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Rakhi Kumari, aged about 31 years, wife of Tipan Saw, resident of Bhamal, Nirsa, P.O. and P.S. - Nirsa, District -

            Dhanbad, Jharkhand                          .... Respondents
                                   ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate :- Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate :- Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V For respondent No.2 :- Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate

----

05/04.09.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel

appearing for the Respondent No.2.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the

entire criminal proceeding including the Order taking cognizance

dated 07.10.2023 in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No.259 of 2023

corresponding to G.R. No.2379 of 2023 pending in the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

--1-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024

3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that the informant is

resident of Nirsa. Her neighbour namely Nageshwar Yadav and his

wife started hurling abuse and when she protested, the petitioner

No.2 assaulted her and started to tear her cloth. While she was

running away to save herself, the petitioner No.1 pushed her on the

ground and assaulted her. The petitioner No.1 also snatched 15 gm.

Gold chain from her neck and petitioner No.2 extended threat of life

to the brother of the informant as also to falsely implicate the entire

family in false case.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that

the police has submitted charge-sheet bearing No.360 of 2023

dated 06.10.2023 against the petitioners under Sections 323, 506

and 34 of the Indian Penal Code contained in Annexure-2. He

further submits that the learned Court has been pleased to take

cognizance against the petitioners under Section 323, 506 and 34 of

the IPC. He then submits that the petitioners have been falsely

implicated in the present case and there are case and counter case

between the parties. The petitioners have filed the Nirsa P.S. Case

No.258 of 2023 on 02.08.2023 at 02;58 hours and on the same

date the present FIR has been lodged by the respondent No.2 at

19:30 hours. He submits that even the police has not found

anything so far Sections 379 and 354 of the IPC is concerned and

the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 323 and 506 of the

IPC. He submits that in the FIR, there is no allegation of receiving

--2-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024 any injury and in view of that Section 319 of the IPC is required to

look into which is the definition section of hurt punishment and is

given under Section 323 of IPC. He submits that this issue is raised

in catena of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ramesh Chandra Vaishya versus State of Uttar Pradesh and

Another reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 668 and he refers

to paragraph No.21 which has been held as under:

Section 323, IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Hurt is defined in section 319, IPC as causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. The allegation in the first F.I.R. is that the appellant had beaten up the complainant for which he sustained multiple injuries. Although the complainant alleged that such incident was witnessed by many persons and that he sustained injuries on his hand, the charge-sheet does neither refer to any eye-witness other than the complainant's wife and son nor to any medical report. The nature of hurt suffered by the complainant in the process is neither reflected from the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet. On the contrary, the appellant had the injuries suffered by him treated immediately after the incident. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent (State) in the present proceeding, there is no material worthy of consideration in this behalf except a bald statement that the complainant sustained multiple injuries "in his hand and

--3-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024 other body parts". If indeed the complainant's version were to be believed, the I.O. ought to have asked for a medical report to support the same. Completion of investigation within a day in a given case could be appreciated but in the present case it has resulted in more disservice than service to the cause of justice. The situation becomes all the more glaring when in course of this proceeding the parties including the first respondent are unable to apprise us the outcome of the second F.I.R. In any event, we do not find any ring of truth in the prosecution case to allow the proceedings to continue vis-à- vis section 323, IPC.

5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the medical

report is not there and in view of that no injury has been received

as such the aforesaid judgment is applicable. He further submits

that the counter affidavit has been filed by the State and

respondent No.2 wherein nothing has been disclosed with regard to

the injury. He submits that the case of Manik Taneja versus

State of Karnataka reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 was further

considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram

Johar versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in

(2019) 14 SCC 207 wherein paragraph No.23, 24, 25 and 26

which has been held as under:

23. In another judgment,

i.e., Manik Taneja and Another Vs. State of

--4-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024 Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 423, this

Court has again occasion to examine the

ingredients of Sections 503 and 506. In the

above case also, case was registered for the

offence under Sections 353 and 506 I.P.C. After

noticing Section 503, which defines criminal

intimidation, this Court laid down following in

paragraph Nos. 11 and 12:-

"11. A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.

12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. 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

--5-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024 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 this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the mind of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of the appellants posting a comment on Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC."

In the above case, allegation was that appellant had abused the complainant. The Court held that the mere fact that the allegation that accused had abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 506.

24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections

--6-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. 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 mere allegation that appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in paragraph No.13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande.

25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid downby Fiona Shrikhande (supra) 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 ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edition with regard to proof of offence states 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 some one 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

--7-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024 such threat." A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.

26. On the principles as enumerated by this Court in Fiona Shrikhande (supra) and Manik Taneja (supra), we are satisfied that ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 are not made out from the complaint filed by the complainant. When the complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which has been treated as a complaint case, does not contain ingredients of Sections 504 and 506, we are of the view that Courts below committed error in rejecting the application of discharge filed by the appellant. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that appellant was entitled to be discharged for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.

6. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that no case is

made out so far the petitioners are concerned under Sections 323

and 506 of the IPC. He submits that the case of the petitioners is

fully covered in view of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme

Court and in view of that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly

be quashed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits

that the police has already submitted the charge sheet and in view

of that the learned Court has rightly taken the cognizance.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits

that there are case and counter case between the parties and there

--8-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024 is dispute with regard to the drainage and for that the occurrence

has taken place and both the sides has lodged the FIR. He submits

that in view of that the case is made out and at this stage this Court

may not quash the entire criminal proceeding that can be a subject

matter of trial.

9. In view of the above submission of learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials

on record including the contents of the FIR, charge-sheet as well as

the order taking cognizance. Looking into the FIR, it transpires that

injury has not been received by the informant and further the police

has not submitted charge-sheet under Section 379 and 354 of the

IPC. For making out a case under Section 323 of the IPC one is

required to look into the definition under Section 319 of IPC for

such punishment under Section 323 of the IPC. For making out a

case under Section 323 of the IPC bodily pain, disease or infirmity is

required and for criminal intimidation, there must be clear 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 that section will not be attracted and

that has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

judgment relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

For making out a case under Section 504 and 506, 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. In the

--9-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024 contents of the FIR that is missing and this aspect further held in

the case of Vikram Johar (Supra) at paragraph No.24.

10. The aforesaid judgments have been further reiterated by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Saxena versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2023) SCC

OnLine SC 1711.

11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis the entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No.259 of

2023 corresponding to G.R. No.2379 of 2023 including the Order

dated 07.10.2023 pending in the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad is hereby quashed.

12. This petition is allowed and disposed of.

                                  (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
A.F.R.




                               --10--                     W.P. (Cr.) No. 359 of 2024