Delhi District Court
Sonwati vs Naresh Kumar on 15 October, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPESH KUMAR
SPL. JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI01 (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CR No.47/2015
Unique Case ID No. :02406R0246292015
Sonwati
w/o Sh.Manohar Lal
r/o 341A, Munirka Village,
New Delhi110067
....Revisionist
Vs.
1. Naresh Kumar,
S/o Sh.Om Prakash,
R/o 405, Village Shahpur Jat,
New Delhi.
2. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi)
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 05.08.2015 Arguments Heard on : 30.08.2016 Date of Decision : 15.10.2016 O R D E R
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist against impugned orders dated 15.04.2015 passed by Ld. MM vide which the respondent Naresh Kumar was discharged under Section 245 of Cr. P.C.
2. Notice of the revision was issued to respondents.
CR 47/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/15.10.2016 2 Trial Court record was summoned.
3. Arguments of Sh.Dinesh Kumar, ld. Counsel for revisionist, Sh.Kuldeep Singh Tomar, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 as well as Sh.R.S.Negi, ld. APP for State heard.
4. The factual matrix of the matter as emerged from the trial court record are that the complainant (hereinafter referred as the revisionist) has filed complaint under Section 506(ii) IPC against the accused Naresh Kumar (hereinafter referred as respondent no.1) on the ground that respondent no.1 was in judicial custody in case FIR no. 387/2010 U/Section 304B/498A/34 IPC of PS Hauz Khas in case titled State vs Naresh Kumar. On 17.3.2011 at 11.30 AM, when respondent no.1 came out from the Court of Ld. MM, he has threatened the revisionist and her husband Manohar Lal that after his release from the jail, he would kill them and their family members just like their daughter Lalita who was his wife. The complainant made complaint at PS Saket but no action was taken by the police. On the basis of these allegations, complaint under Section 506 IPC was filed by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court. After recording presummoning evidence, vide order dated 07.03.2012 respondent no.1 was summoned by the ld. trial court under Section 506(ii) IPC. Thereafter, pre charge evidence was recorded. Then after hearing the parties at point of charge, vide impugned order the respondent no.1 was discharged by the ld. Trial court.
CR 47/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/15.10.2016 3
5. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has submitted that the threat extended by respondent no.1 falls within the definition of criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 IPC and as such trial court should have framed the charge accordingly. It has been further submitted that trial court has wrongly reached at conclusion that it was emotional upheal without properly appreciating the evidence on record. On the basis of these submissions it has been submitted that, prima facie, charge under Section 506 (ii) IPC is made out any the accused.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for respondent no.1 has submitted that there is no evidence that any alarm was caused to the revisionist on the words alleged to be uttered by respondent no.1.
7. Heard. Material perused.
Before proceeding ahead here it is necessary to reproduce Section 503 and 506 of IPC, which are as under : Section 503. Criminal Intimidation. - 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 threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. - Whoever commits, the offence or criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or CR 47/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/15.10.2016 4 with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. - And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the 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. Further, in case of Ramesh v State, AIR 1960 SC 154, following ingredients are necessary for the offence under Section 506 of IPC : I) The accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested; II) The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence;
III) The accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.
Reverting to the present matter, here it is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence of complainant CW1 and CW 2, which are as under : CW1 Smt.Somwati. Accused Naresh thereafter threatened saying that he would kill my 3 children as he had killed my daughter Lalita. Accused Naresh kept on threaening by say that he would not remain in custody/jail forever and as and when he would come out he would kill my other children. CW2 Sh. Manohar Lal. Naresh told to us that after his release from jail he will kill me and my family just like Lalita.
From careful perusal of evidence of both these witnesses, CR 47/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/15.10.2016 5 it is found that none of the witness has stated that respondent no.1 has threatened them not to perform any act which they were not legally bound to do. Hence, in view of the above discussion, one of the essential ingredients of Section 503 IPC is missing.
In case Kanshi Ram vs State, 2000 (54) DRJ, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has, inter alia, held that so far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the complainant Israr Ahmed stated in his case diary statement that at the relevant time the petitioner had exhorted his security personnel to thrash the journalists. According to Israr Ahmed, the exact words used by the petitioner were "Maro Salon Ko". Strangely enough, Israr Ahmed has nowhere stated in his statement that the alleged threat had caused an alarm to him. ... It is well setled that mere threat is no offence. That being so, the threat alleged to have been given by the petitioner does not fall within the mischief of Section 506 IPC. Consequently, no charge under Section 506 IPC can be framed against the petitioner on the basis of said evidence.
Further in case Amitabh Adhar & anr. Vs NCT of Delhi & anr., 2000 (56) DRJ (Suppl) 220, Hon'ble High Court has, inter alia, held that the threats alleged to have been given tot he complainant Ms.Bharti by the petitioners do not fall within the definition of criminal intimidation inasmuch as the complainant has nowhere stated that the threats given by the petitioners caused an alarm to her. It is well settled that mere threat is no offence.
Coming to the present matter it is found that there is nothing on record which suggest that what alarm has caused to the complainant due to the words, if, uttered by the respondent no.1. Therefore, another ingredient of offence that act of accused cause any alarm to the victim as enshrined under Section 503 IPC is also CR 47/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/15.10.2016 6 missing.
Under these eventualities, no illegality or infirmity has been found in the impugned order and no justified reason is found to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order stands upheld and consequently, the present revision stands dismissed.
8. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith the copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court (Bhupesh Kumar) Today on 15.10.2016 Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI01(South) Saket Courts : New Delhi.
CR 47/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/15.10.2016