Gujarat High Court
Gunvantray Bhagwanbhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12431/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 12431 of 2013
==========================================================
GUNVANTRAY BHAGWANBHAI DESAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA(7009) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,3
MR PH BUCH(1018) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside proceedings of Criminal Case No.239 of 2012 filed by the respondent No.2 pending before the learned JMFC, Fatepura for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 352, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC.
2. Seeking quashment of the impugned private complaint, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that plain reading of the private complaint does not disclose ingredients of offences punishable u/s 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. He would further submit that in para 3 of the private complaint, allegation of passing threat is made, which is attracting ingredients of Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:06:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12431/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined offences punishable u/s 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. He would further submit that apart from this submission, the complainant claims that he has hired labourer and was promised to pay 25% of the total profit, settled the issue with the petitioner and executed one MOU and said that there is no outstanding remains now. He would further submit that prior to lodging of the private complaint, labour case was lodged with the Labour Court and the same has been disposed of by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioners. He would further submit that filing of the private complaint is malicious proceedings. Upon such submission, he prays to allow this petition.
3. Per contra, learned advocate for the complainant would submit that the complainant has levelled allegation that threat was passed upon the complainant and therefore, essential ingredients of sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC are made out and hence, such issue cannot be decided at this juncture and can be decided during trial. Upon such submission, he prays to dismiss the petition.
4. Learned APP joining the hands of learned advocate for the complainant requests to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
6. At the outset, let refer section 503 and 504 and 506 of the IPC.
"503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:06:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12431/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined 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. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.-- 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;
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 1 [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."Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:06:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12431/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined
7. Section 503 defines the criminal intimidation. It consists of two parts. The first part refers to the act of threatening another with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in which that person is interested and second part refers to the intent with which the threatening is carried out. However, second part is also consists of two categories, one to cause alarm to the person threatened and the second 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 threat. Moreover, the threat must be communicated or uttered with the intention of it being communicated to the person threatened with the object of influencing his mind. To constitute the offence of criminal intimidation, the threat must be of that type which is capable of being put into execution by the accused so as to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere boasting of causing harm such as a threat to kill, by itself is not a criminal intimidation.
8. At the same time, in order to prove the offence under Section 504 and 506(2) of IPC, it is to be proved that threat was passed to cause death or grievous hurt or to cause destruction of any property by fire or to cause offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or to impute unchastity of woman and such threat should be persistent.
9. What further could be noticed that so far as offence punishable u/s 504 and 506(2) of the IPC are concerned, there cannot be an intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of peace. These essential ingredients are totally lacking on Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:06:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12431/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined reading the private complaint as well as all the evidence on record. At no point of time, it comes on record that because of intentional insult by the accused, the complainant was provoked to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Considering the contents of the private complaint, the prosecution failed to bring the case within four corners of "with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant".
10. Moreover, the learned JMFC has issued process to the accused who are living outside his territorial jurisdiction without conducting inquiry u/s 202 of the Code. This is one more anathema to the order issuing process.
11. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:06:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12431/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are sO absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where, there is an express legal bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
11.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration.
12. This Court is quite conscious that power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is extraordinary power and should be used sparingly, as the exercise of such power would scuttle the FIR at the threshold. But, if the FIR fails to make out essential ingredients of the offence, power should be exercised.
13. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No.239 of 2012 filed by the respondent No.2 Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:06:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12431/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined pending before the learned JMFC, Fatepura for the offences punishable u/s406, 420, 352, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC against the present petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:06:27 IST 2025