A.Suresh vs The State Rep. By
2021 Latest Caselaw 1312 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1312 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2021

Madras High Court

A.Suresh vs The State Rep. By on 21 January, 2021

Crl.O.P.No.21015 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.01.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Crl.O.P.No.21015 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.No.10843 of 2019

A.Suresh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Erode Town Police Station,
Erode District.

2. Kumar ... Respondents

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. calling
for the records pertaining to CC.No.772 of 2019 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate -II, Erode and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and
abuse of process by allowing the present criminal original petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.Guruprasad.M.
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan R2

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in

CC.No.772 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate -II, Erode. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.No.21015 of 2019

2. The second respondent gave a complaint against the petitioner on

19.06.2019 to the effect that the petitioner barged into the lodge and demanded

money from the second respondent on the ground that the petitioner is the Sub-

Editor of the Magazine and if the money is not given, the petitioner will publish

damaging articles about the lodge. It is further alleged in the complaint that the

petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- and went to the extent of threatening

the second respondent. The FIR was registered on 19.06.2019. The statements

of the witnesses was recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. on 19.06.2019

and 20.06.2019 and the final report was laid 20.06.2019. The Court below has

taken cognizance of the complaint for offences under Section 500,387 and

506(ii) of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before

this Court.

3. Heard Mr.Guruprasad.M., learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of the first respondent and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned counsel for the

second respondent.

4. The main ground of attack in the present petition is that the facts

alleged are inherently improbable and the fact that a final report came to be filed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ on the very next day after the FIR was registered, itself shows that the

Crl.O.P.No.21015 of 2019

respondent Police have acted in haste with malafide intention.

5. The final report has been taken cognizance for the offences under

Section 500, 387 and 506(ii) of IPC. Insofar as the offence under Section 500 of

IPC is concerned, it falls under Chapter-XXI of the IPC. Section 199 of Cr.P.C.

specifically provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence

punishable under Chapter- XXI of the IPC, except upon a complaint made by

the aggrieved person. In short, for offence under Section 500 of IPC, there must

be a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. and in the present case,

the cognizance has been taken by virtue of a police report. Therefore, the Court

below lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance for offence under Section 500 of

IPC.

6. The second offence for which the Court below has taken cognizance is

under Section 387 of IPC. In order to attract the offence under Section 387 of

IPC, the petitioner should have actually caused or attempted to cause fear to the

victim for the purpose of committing extortion and the fear in question must be

of such gravity of causing death or grievous hurt to the victim. In the present

case, except for some oral threat that is alleged in the complaint and in the 161

statements, there is absolutely no material to bring the facts of the present case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ under Section 387 of IPC.

Crl.O.P.No.21015 of 2019

7. The third offence for which the Court below has taken cognizance is

under Section 506(ii) of IPC. For the purpose of establishing the charge of

criminal intimidation, empty threats by itself cannot make out an offence unless

there is some material to show that the threat is a real one. Useful reference can

be made to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikram Johar Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2019 (3) MLJ Crl.295.

8. In the present case, the complaint as well as the statements merely

shows that the petitioner has made an oral threat that he will attack if the money

is not given to the petitioner. This material is not enough to bring this case

within the offence of criminal intimidation.

9. Apart from the above, the undue haste shown by the Police in

registering the FIR on 19.06.2019 and filing a final report on the very next day

on 20.06.2019 and coupled with the allegations made against the petitioner,

apparently shows that the incident itself is inherently improbable. Within two

days of the alleged incident, the respondent Police had recorded the statement of

nearly nine witnesses out of which there are two observation mahazar witnesses

and two seizure mahazar witnesses, who are ranked third parties. It defies https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ commonsense while noticing that in a case of this nature, the police took pains

Crl.O.P.No.21015 of 2019

to complete the investigation in such a rapid pace. It is something very strange

and strikes at the root of the very criminal proceedings initiated against the

petitioner.

10. In view of the above discussions, the proceedings against the

petitioner in CC.No.772 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate -II,

Erode, is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed

accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.01.2021

Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

Index :Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No