Kerala High Court

Santhosh Kumar T.P vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                  2024:KER:71547
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

 WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 3RD ASWINA, 1946

                      CRL.MC NO. 3809 OF 2018

  CRIME NO.2403/2014 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

        IN CC NO.489 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

                       CLASS I, PERUMBAVOOR


PETITIONER:

          SANTHOSH KUMAR T.P, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN,
          THUNDIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PIZHALA P.O.,KADAMAKKUDY
          VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.S.RAJEEV
          SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
          SRI.D.FEROZE
          SRI.V.VINAY

RESPONDENTS:
     1    STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
          PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
          (CRIME NO. 2403/14 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).
     2    KUNJUMOL PUSHPAN, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.PUSHPRAJ,
          PUTHUKKATTIL VEETTIL, KARTHIKAPPILLY KARA, VAIKOM
          TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN- 686 146

          BY ADV M.M.LAIJU NISSA

OTHER PRESENT:
          SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP
          SMY. M.M.LAIJU NISSA (R2)


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.3809/2018
                                   2

                                                     2024:KER:71547

                    P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                    -----------------------------------
                        Crl.M.C.No.3809 of 2018
                     -----------------------------------
               Dated this the 25th day of September, 2024

                               ORDER

This Crl.M.C is filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.489/2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Perumbavoor arising from Crime No.2403/2014 of

Perumbavoor Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted

against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable

under Sections 341 and 506(i) read with 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused invited

charge witness No.1 and others for a discussion on 28.05.2014 at

11:00 am at Perumbavoor Faz Auditorium to settle the dispute in a

chitty conducted by a company. It is alleged that the accused

wrongfully confined charge witness No.1 and others and threatened

them about the serious consequence and obtained signature in

white papers. According to the petitioner, even if the entire

allegations are accepted, no offence is made out.

2024:KER:71547

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the counsel appearing for the second respondent. I also heard the

Public Prosecutor.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner is a lawyer. According

to the petitioner, he appeared in several cases in which one

Rajashree Company is involved. There was a series of dispute

between the said Rajasree Company and the chitty subscribers who

have invested money in the said company. Several complaints are

pending at different forums where the petitioner was defending the

company. It is also submitted that, at the instances of the Kerala

Legal Service Authority Ernakulam, several cases were settled out

of Court. The subscribers of chitty formed association and

requested the petitioner to participate in the discussion to settle

the issue is the submission. In one of the circumstance, the meeting

was convened on 28.05.2014 at Faz Auditorium at Perumbavuoor

and in the capacity as a lawyer, the petitioner has gone there to

explain the circumstances, and at that juncture, the subscribers

assembled there became violent and attempted to assault the

petitioner. Hence it is alleged that, no offence is committed

2024:KER:71547

by the petitioner.

5. This Court perused the allegation in the final

report. Admittedly, it was a meeting of the subscribers of chitty. It

is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is only a lawyer and not

the office bearer of the Chitty Company. It is also an admitted fact

that the subscribers were invited for a discussion. The petitioner

and the other two accused wrongfully confined the subscribers who

were about 50 people and committed criminal intimidation to get

their signature in certain papers. The above allegation itself is

unbelievable because, is it possible for three persons to wrongfully

confine about 50 persons?. The main offence alleged is under

Section 506(i) IPC. To attract the above offence, certain

ingredients are necessary.

6. The Apex Court considered the ingredients of the

same in detail in Manik Taneja and anr. v. State of Karnataka

and anr. [2015 KHC 4046]. The relevant portion of the above

judgment is extracted hereunder:

"13. S.506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation"

as defined in S.503 IPC is as under:

"503. Criminal Intimidation.-- Whoever threatens

2024:KER:71547

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."

14. 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.

15. 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 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 minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for

2024:KER:71547

helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in S.503 IPC."

(underline supplied)

7. Even if the entire allegations and the statement

of the witnesses are accepted, I am of the considered opinion that,

the same will not attract the offence under Section 506(i) IPC in

the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court. What remains

is the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Section

341 of the Indian Penal Code says about the punishment for

wrongful confinement. 'Wrongful confinement' is defined under

Section 339 IPC, which is extracted hereunder:

339. Wrongful restraint.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

8. To constitute wrongful confinement, the accused

should voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that

person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a

right to proceed. In this case, the prosecution has no case that the

petitioner wrongfully obstructed Charge Witness No.1 and others

2024:KER:71547

from proceeding in any direction when that person has a right to

proceed. If that is the case, the offence under Section 341 IPC is

also not maintainable.