Madras High Court
Renganayakam vs State Rep. By Its on 13 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.16689 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.16689 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.9106 & 9108 of 2021
1.Renganayakam
2.Kannayal
3.Nagendiran
4.Thulasiraman ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
All Woman Police Station,
Perambalur District.
2.KJaya ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in CC.No.146/2010
pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur District and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s.C.Raghavan
For Respondent: Mr.S.Balaji, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) [R.1]
: No appearance [R.2]
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.16689 of 2021
ORDER
The petition is to quash the final report filed for the alleged offences
under Sections 109 and 506(i) of IPC as against the petitioners 1 to 4
herein/accused 2 to 5.
2. It is alleged in the final report that A.1 and the de facto
complainant were husband and wife; that on 25.10.2017, A.1 went to the
house of the de facto complainant, attacked the de facto complainant and
attempted to take away their son who was in the custody of the de facto
complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners are related to the 1st accused. The 1st petitioner is the father, the
2nd respondent is the mother and the 3rd and the 4th petitioners are the
brothers of the 1st accused. They have noting to do with the dispute between
the 1st accused and the de facto complainant. They were not present at the
scene of occurrence and they have been falsely implicated. In any case, the
only allegation against the petitioners is that they had abetted the offence of
criminal intimidation said to have been committed by A.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.16689 of 2021
4. The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that there are
allegations in the impugned final report which have to be adjudicated only
before the Trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.
5. This Court finds that the only allegation against the petitioners is
that they had abetted the offence of criminal intimidation said to have been
committed by A.1. This Court has repeatedly held that in order to attract the
offence of Criminal intimidation, there must be a real threat, mere words
uttered would not constitute criminal intimidation. The relevant
observations of the judgment of this Court in Noble Mohandass Vs. State,
reported in Manu/TN/0026/1988, is extracted hereunder for better
understanding:-
“7. ...... Further for being an offence under Section 506(2)
which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and
not just a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean
what he says and also when the person at whom threat is launched
does not feel threatened actually. ....”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.16689 of 2021
6. Further, this Court finds that there is absolutely no evidence to
infer that the petitioners had abetted the alleged offence of criminal
intimidation.
7. In view of the above, the proceedings against the petitioners alone
are liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
13.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
shr
To,
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Woman Police Station,
Perambalur District.
2. The Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.16689 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
shr
Crl.O.P.No.16689 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.9106 & 9108 of 2021
13.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
