Gujarat High Court
Jivanbhai Devjibhai Bhogayata vs Mohanbhai Purshottam Mokariya Brahmin ... on 10 April, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/3927/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3927 of 2013
With
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 663 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 317 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 65 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the NO judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the NO
interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================ JIVANBHAI DEVJIBHAI BHOGAYATA....Applicant(s) Versus MOHANBHAI PURSHOTTAM MOKARIYA BRAHMIN & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR FB BRAHMBHATT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR PINAKIN M RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 10/04/2015 COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
1. Since the issues involved in all the captioned applications are Page 1 of 8 R/SCR.A/3927/2013 CAV JUDGMENT more or less the same and the question of law involved is also the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. By these writapplications, the applicantoriginal accused seeks quashment of four F.I.Rs lodged against him by four different individuals for the offence punishable under Sections507, 504, 506(2) and 294(B) of the I.P.C.
3. It is the case of the applicant that all the four FIRs registered against him are false and the same have been lodged at the instance of one Rambhai Mokariya due to a long standing business rivalry. All the four first informants are employees of Rambhai Mokariya, the Chairman and Managing Director of a Company running in the name of Maruti Courier Services Private Limited.
3.1 Special Criminal Application No.663 of 2014: In this application, the challenge is to the FIR filed by the respondent no.2 original first informant dated 25.01.2014 for an incident of alleged administration of threats on a telephone dated 11.11.2013. Thus, after a delay of almost more than 02 months, the F.I.R. being C.R.No.II3012 of 2014 was registered with the Dhangandhra Police Station, Surendranagar for the offence punishable under Section507 of the I.P.C.
3.2 Special Criminal Application No.317 of 2014: In this application, the challenge is to the FIR filed by the respondent no.2 original first informant dated 19.11.2013 for an incident of alleged administration of threats on a telephone dated 19.11.2013. The F.I.R. being C.R.No.II3095 of 2013 was registered with the Rakhiyal Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable Page 2 of 8 R/SCR.A/3927/2013 CAV JUDGMENT under Section507 of the I.P.C.
3.3 Special Criminal Application No.3927 of 2013: In this application, the challenge is to the FIR filed by the respondent no.2 original first informant dated 09.12.2013 for an incident of alleged administration of threats on a telephone dated 08.12.2013. The F.I.R. being C.R.No.I3091 of 2013 was registered with the Lodhika Police Station, Rajkot (Rural) for the offence punishable under Sections504, 507 r/w.114 of the I.P.C.
3.4 Special Criminal Application No.65 of 2014: In this application, the challenge is to the FIR filed by the respondent no.2 original first informant dated 01.12.2013 for an incident alleged to have been committed on 29.05.2013. Thus, after a delay of almost more than 07 months, the F.I.R. being C.R.No.II3193 of 2013 was registered with the Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections294(B) and 506(2) of the I.P.C.
4. Mr. F.B. Brahmbhatt, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently submitted that the FIRs lodged against his client are with an oblique motive. He submits that it is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the criminal machinery. He submits that his client is being harassed by one Rambhai Mokariya, who is engaged in the business of Courier Services. Mr. Brahmbhatt submitted that the applicant herein was also one of the Directors of 'Maruti Courier Services Limited' alongwith Rambhai Mokariya. He submitted that his client came to be removed as a Director illegally. Later on, his client floated his own Company running in the name of 'Maruti Nandan Courier Services Limited'. He submits that his client is doing very well in the business and on account of business rivalry, Shri Rambhai Mokariya, through his own employees has started harassing the applicant in one Page 3 of 8 R/SCR.A/3927/2013 CAV JUDGMENT way or the other by lodging false FIRs.
5. Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Sections507, 506(2), 504 of the I.P.C. are spelt out. He submits that if the Police Officers are allowed to continue with the investigation of such FIRs, then the same will be nothing but gross misuse of the criminal machinery. He, therefore, prays that all the FIRs deserve to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, these applications are vehemently opposed by Shri Pinakin Raval, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the first informant in each of the applications. He submitted that a plain reading of each of the FIRs discloses the commission of cognizable offence and therefore, the Police should be permitted to continue with the investigation. He submitted that the Court should not embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations levelled in the respective FIRs are true or false. He submits that there being no merit in any of the applications, they all deserve to be rejected.
7. Mr. Dabhi, the learned APP also opposed these applications and submitted that the Police should be permitted to complete the investigation.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my determination is whether the FIRs should be quashed.
9. Out of the four applications before me, I have noticed that in two matters i.e. Special Criminal Application No.3927 of 2013 and Special Page 4 of 8 R/SCR.A/3927/2013 CAV JUDGMENT Criminal Application No.65 of 2014, there is a gross delay in lodging the report with the concerned Police Station. So far as C.R. No.II3012 of 2014 registered with the Dhangandhra Police Station is concerned, the same was registered on 25.01.2014 for the offence alleged to have been committed on 11.11.2013. There is no explanation worth the name coming from the first informant about the delay except a very feeble argument that since he was afraid because of the threat administered, he was not in a position to immediately register the FIR. This explanation deserves to be rejected outright.
10. So far as the C.R.No.II3193 of 2013 registered with the Anandnagar Police Station is concerned, the same was registered on 01.12.2013 for the offence alleged to have been committed on 25.05.2013. In this case also, no plausible explanation has been given as to why it took so long for the first informant to lodge the FIR except that he was afraid because of the threat administered.
11. Primafacie, it appears that the applicant herein is a victim of the business rivalry. These FIRs have been registered at the instance of one Shri Rambhai Mokariya, who is also engaged in the business of courier services. The applicant, after being removed as a Director from the Company of Shri Rambhai Mokariya, started his own company in the name of Maruti Nandan Courier Services Private Limited. The company floated by the applicant has branches and franchises spread in all over the country with approximately 520 offices.
12. In all the FIRs byandlarge, the allegations are the same. So far as Section507 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the following essential ingredients must be spelt out.Page 5 of 8 R/SCR.A/3927/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
(I) That the accused committed the offence of criminal intimidation.
(II) That he did so by an anonymous communication or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes.
13. Section 294 of the IPC is with respect to obscene acts and songs and it reads as under: "294. Obscene acts and songs. Whoever, to the annoyance of others
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
14. In my opinion, even if the entire case of the first informant is accepted, none of the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 294(a) IPC could be said to have been spelt out. What is complained of in the first information report could not be termed as an obscene act. Therefore, there is no question of commission of any offence under Section 294(a) of the IPC.
15. The above takes me to consider whether any case is made out so far as the offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC is concerned. Section 506 reads as under: "S. 506. 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;
and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the Page 6 of 8 R/SCR.A/3927/2013 CAV JUDGMENT destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 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.
16. The essential ingredients The offence of criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 I.P.C and Section 506 I.P.C provides punishment for it.
Section 503 reads as under: "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 threats, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation: A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the persons threatened is interested, is within this section.
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.
17. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the I.P.C. makes it clear that a part of it relates to a criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal Page 7 of 8 R/SCR.A/3927/2013 CAV JUDGMENT intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Let me assume for the moment, what has been alleged in the complaint is true, even then, mere threats given by the accused, not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation.
18. In the overall view of the matter, I am convinced that the four complaints lodged by the four different individuals, who are none other than the employees of Shri Rambhai Mokariya, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the criminal machinery.
19. In the result, all these applications are allowed. The respective FIRs being (1) F.I.R. being C.R.No.II3012 of 2014 was registered with the Dhangandhra Police Station, Surendranagar; (2) the F.I.R. being C.R.No.II3095 of 2013 was registered with the Rakhiyal Police Station, Ahmedabad; (3) the F.I.R. being C.R.No.I3091 of 2013 was registered with the Lodhika Police Station, Rajkot (Rural); and (4) the F.I.R. being C.R.No.II3193 of 2013 was registered with the Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad are hereby ordered to be quashed. All consequential proceedings pursuant thereto stand terminated. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) aruna Page 8 of 8