Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tej Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 February, 2013
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Criminal Misc. No. M-33743 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-33743 of 2011
Date of decision : February 21, 2013
Tej Singh and others
....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. SN Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Sidharath Sarup, DAG Haryana for respondent no. 1
Mr. Sumeet Sheokand, Advocate, for respondent no. 2
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Accused Tej Singh and two others have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No. 459 dated 5.8.2011, under section 506 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, Annexure P/3 lodged by respondent no. 2-complainant who is an Advocate in District Courts, Jhajjar.
According to averments in the FIR, the petitioners in Tehsil compound Jhajjar caught hold of the hand of the complainant and Criminal Misc. No. M-33743 of 2011 2 threatened him to withdraw his case from the court failing which they (petitioners) would kill him and his family.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Motion order dated 8.11.2011 is reproduced hereinunder:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners no. 1 and 2 have filed pre-emption suit against respondent no. 2-complainant and have also deposited amount of Rs 21,00,000/- as 1/5th pre-emption money in the said suit and the impugned FIR has been lodged to pressurize the petitioners to withdraw their pre-emption suit, which is based on their tenancy over the suit land for the last 30 years. It is also contended that even according to the FIR, the petitioners were empty handed. It is contended that mere empty threat does not constitute offence under section 506 IPC, as held by this court in the case of Usha Bala vs. State of Punjab reported as 2002(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 445. It was also contended that in the aforesaid circumstances, the FIR is mala fide and the complainant could not feel intimidated by mere words without use of any weapon or show of criminal force, as held by this Court in a judgment namely Surinder Suri vs. State of Haryana and others reported as 1996(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 701.
Notice of motion for 02.01.2012.
Meanwhile, investigation may go on, but presentation of final investigation report under section Criminal Misc. No. M-33743 of 2011 3 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall remain stayed."
Learned counsel for the respondents contended that offence under section 506 IPC is made out from the averments in the FIR. The contention cannot be accepted. The FIR is malafide and gross abuse of process of law. Respondent no. 2-complainant is an Advocate and knowing the nuances of law, he has lodged this FIR. On the other hand, petitioners no. 1 and 2 have filed pre-emption suit against respondent no. 2- complainant and have also deposited ` 21,00,000/- as 1/5th pre-emption money. This factual position is not disputed by counsel for respondent no. 2-complainant. In the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioners asked the complainant to withdraw his case. Counsel for the complainant admitted that complainant has not filed any case (suit) against the petitioners and rather the petitioners have filed pre-emption suit against the complainant. Thus, the question of the petitioners asking the complainant to withdraw his suit, as mentioned in the FIR, did not arise.
In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioners, even according to complainant's version, were empty handed. Mere empty threat by mere words would not constitute offence of criminal intimidation punishable under section 506 IPC as held by this Court in the cases of Usha Bala (supra) and Surinder Suri (supra).
Prosecution of the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR Criminal Misc. No. M-33743 of 2011 4 would, therefore, be abuse of process of law which is required to be prevented by this Court by exercise of inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. Prosecution of the petitioners would result in great miscarriage of justice. Instead of criminal intimidation of the complainant, the petitioners are sought to be intimidated by lodging this FIR so that the petitioners may not prosecute their pre-emption suit against the complainant.
Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR Annexure P/3 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
( L.N. Mittal )
February 21, 2013 Judge
'dalbir'