Madras High Court
Srinivasan vs State By Sub Inspector Of Police on 27 July, 2009
Author: Aruna Jagadeesan
Bench: Aruna Jagadeesan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.07.2009
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Crl.OP.No.14940/2006
Cr.MP.No.1/2006
Srinivasan Petitioner
Vs
1.State by Sub Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station, Ambur, Vellore District
2.Shanthi Respondents
Prayer:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records of FIR and quash the same against the Petitioner in Cr.NO.9/2006 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambur, Vellore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankara Subbu
For Respondents : Mr.S.Senthil Murugan for PP-R1
Mr.M.Premkumar-R2
ORDER
The Petitioner, who is as an advocate practicing at Vellore District, has filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the complaint registered in Cr.NO.9/2006 on file of the Respondent Police.
2. The case of the Prosecution in brief is as follows:-
The complainant one Shanthi, who is the 2nd Respondent herein, lodged a complaint on 18.4.2006 complaining that one Sivakumar had promised to marry her and had sexual relationship with her, but refused to marry her at the instigation of his brother Jayasimhan. Apprehending arrest, Jayasimhan and Sivakumar had moved for anticipatory bail in Cr.MP.No.3647/2006 and when it came up before the Sessions Court at Vellore, as the Respondent Police made an endorsement that the complainant's petition was closed after enquiry, the said petition for anticipatory bail was closed.
3. Again the defacto complainant Shanthi had preferred another complaint against Sivakumar that he refused to marry her and it was alleged that on 21.4.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. Sivakumar and some Panchayatars forced her not to proceed with the complaint against Sivakumar and also threatened her not to insist for marriage. In the said complaint, the allegation is made against the advocate, the Petitioner herein that on the same day he had filed an application for anticipatory bail for the accused Sivakumar and threatened her that she should not insist for the marriage with Sivakumar.
4. The Petitioner submits that on 21.4.2006, he was physically present before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore at about 10.30 a.m. and appeared in SC.No.47/2004 and thereafter, he filed an application in CMP.No.3647/2006 for anticipatory bail for the accused Sivakumar. He would further state that thereafter at about 2.00 p.m. on 21.4.2006, he cast his vote during the Bar Association Election at Vellore. On the whole day from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. he was in the District Court Campus at Vellore and it is not possible for him to be in the Vadacheri Village, as it is 70 kms away from the District Court and the allegation made by the complainant that he was present as one among the Panchayatars and threatened her is motivated in order to deter him from discharging his professional duty as an advocate.
5. Mr.A.Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that even if the allegation made in the FIR is taken as it is, it does not attract any offence against the Petitioner under Section 506(i) of IPC and therefore, the FIR as against him is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied on the decisions rendered in the cases of Amulya Kumar Behera Vs. Nabaghana Behera alias Nabina and others [1995-Cri.L.J-3559], Noble Mohandass Vs. State [1988-STPL-LE-Crim-12877-MAD] and Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao & Others Vs. State of AP and another [2007-Cri.LJ-1204] that when there is no specific allegation against the Petitioner that he had threatened the complainant with injury to her person, reputation or property, the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC are not attracted and the complaint in so far as the Petitioners are concerned cannot be sustained.
6. In the case of M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt Limited by its Director A.R.Santhanakrishnan Vs. Inspector of Police, Team IV, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-8 and three others [2006-1-LW-Crl-307], it is held that very bald allegation made on the enquiry that the accused 1 to 3 threatened to kill him would be a stock version and it cannot be given much credence at all to such threat.
7. Criminal intimidation, as defined in Section 503 of IPC is the act of threatening with intent to cause alarm to a person or to cause a person to do any act which is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which a person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
8. It is no doubt true that the High Court should not act as an investigation agency at the stage when the FIR is under investigation or enter into the factual arena while quashing the complaint under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. Keeping the above mentioned principles in mind, the primary question which arises for consideration in this Criminal Original Petition is as to whether the allegations, made in the FIR or the complaint even they are taken on their face value and accepted in its entirety, make out a case against the accused or not. For determination of this question, it is relevant to note the nature of the offence alleged, its ingredients and the averments made in the complaint.
10. Even assuming that the accused Petitioner moved anticipatory bail for the accused Sivakumar before the Sessions Court at Vellore and threatened the defacto complainant not to insist for marriage with the accused Sivakumar, as an advocate, the Petitioner has discharged his professional function and that cannot be taken as a threat made to the complainant.
11. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC, the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. Mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm would not suffice. To constitute an offence under Section 506 of IPC, it must be shown that the person charged actually threatened another with injury to his person, reputation or property with an intention to cause alarm.
12. In this case, even if the allegations in the complaint are read as a whole and are accepted in their entirety as true, the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC are not attracted in so far as the Petitioner herein is concerned. On the mere allegation that the Petitioner had moved the anticipatory bail to the accused Sivakumar without taking efforts to insist him to marry the defacto complainant, it can never be said that he had threatened the defacto complainant with an intention to cause injury to her, person or reputation or property with an intention to cause alarm to her.
13. For the above said reasons, the impugned complaint in so far as the Petitioner is concerned is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
Srcm To:
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras