Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh Patil vs Sardev Singh Gill on 24 February, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-25523 of 2009(O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-25523 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision: February 24, 2012
Ranjit Singh Patil
----Petitioner
versus
Sardev Singh Gill
---Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner
None for the respondent
RITU BAHRI, J.
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.5.2009(Annexure P-5) whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Section 506 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is working as a Principal in Maharaja Ranjit Singh College, Malout. As per the complaint (Annexure P-4), on 31.5.2008, the petitioner came to his office and in front of Makhan Singh son of Jagsir Singh and Amrik Singh, son of Dalip Singh, Peons, threatened him that he should have given advertisement in the newspaper for the recruitment of lecturer through the petitioner, who was a reporter with "Rozana Ajit" but he had given the advertisement directly to the head office of Rozana Ajit, Jalandhar. The present petitioner- Crl. Misc. No. M-25523 of 2009(O&M) - 2- accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- for a special edition of newspaper at city Malout. On refusal by the complainant, the petitioner became furious.
Subsequently, on 16.6.2008, the Rozana Ajit carried a news item about the accident which took place with the car being driven by the complainant, Principal of Maharaja Ranjit Singh College, Malout. The accident was in the early hours and in front of general public. The petitioner had clicked some photographs of the accident, which were printed in the newspaper on 16.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) with the article (Annexure P-2). After publication of news (Annexure P-2) dated 16.6.2008, a clarification (Annexure P-3) was given by Sardev Singh, Principal, Maharaja Ranjit Singh College on 17.6.2008 in Rozana Ajit, Jalandhar. As per this clarification, the car was not driven by him but was driven by his brother-in-law, who was going to Tohana. He reached there on a telephone call. Subsequently, in the police station, a compromise was effected with the truck driver. The driver of the car was not under the influence of Alcohol. Thereafter, the criminal complaint under Section 384, 504, 506 and 500 IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malout.
In the order dated 14.5.2009 (Annexure P-5), no offence under Sections 384, 504 and 500 IPC was made out and the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 506 IPC.
After going through the entire file, as per complainant, Crl. Misc. No. M-25523 of 2009(O&M) - 3- on 31.5.2008, when he was talking to his Peons, Makhan Singh and Amrik Singh, then petitioner-Ranjit Singh Patil, Reporter, came to him and asked him to send the advertisement in the newspaper through him i.e. Ranjit Singh Patil. His grievance was that the advertisement was sent directly to Rozana Ajit, Jalandhar. He asked the complainant to pay him Rs. 10,000/- for publication of advertisement in the special edition of Rozana Ajit, Malout. When he refused, the petitioner became furious and threatened him that he will publish a false news in the Ajit newspaper. The immediate cause for registration of this complaint on 18.7.2008 is the publication of news item on 16.6.2008(Annexure P-2). As per the news item dated 16.6.2008, the offending car was being driven by the Principal of Maharaja Ranjit Singh College along with his friends under the influence of liquor and hit a truck on the G.T.Road. There was a scuffle with the truck driver and later on the Principal was thrashed by the people standing nearby. On 17.6.2008, a clarification was given by the Principal in the same newspaper i.e. Rozana Ajit, Jalandhar (Annexure P-3) that he was not driving the car instead his brother- in-law was going to Tohana in connection with the death of some relative and his car met with an accident with truck. The driver had not taken alcohol. After clarification in the newspaper, complaint dated 18.7.2008 was filed. The trial court while passing the summoning order dated 14.5.2009, held that the publication of news did not attract the provisions of Sections 384, 504 and Crl. Misc. No. M-25523 of 2009(O&M) - 4- 500 IPC. The petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Section 506 IPC on account of the threat given by him to the respondent on 31.5.2008 when he visited the college of the respondent. As per the complaint, the petitioner has asked the respondent-complainant to give Rs. 10,000/- for publication of the advertisement in the special edition of Ajit, Malout. No money was actually paid. The allegation that he threatened the complainant by publication of false news is falsified as the accident had taken place on 15.6.2008 of the car belonging to the complainant, which was being driven by his brother-in-law. The complainant had reached the spot and subsequently, the matter was compromised in the police station.
All these facts do not made out a case of criminal intimidation as the accident had taken place on 15.6.2008. The criminal intimidation as per Section 503 IPC is 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 interest, 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."
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1991 (1) RCR Crl. Misc. No. M-25523 of 2009(O&M) - 5- (Criminal) 383 this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various provisions of Criminal Procedure Code has laid down principles of law relating to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The parameters laid down are 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 in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as Crl. Misc. No. M-25523 of 2009(O&M) - 6- contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurt 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 bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings 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 mala fide 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." In the complaint made by the complainant, the ingredients of criminal intimidation are not made out. The accident had taken place on 15.6.2008, which was subsequently compromised. The car did belong to the complainant. Threat had been given to the complainant on 31.5.2008 whereas the complaint was filed on 18.7.2008 after the accident took place on 15.6.2008. The incident which took place on 31.5.2008 in the Crl. Misc. No. M-25523 of 2009(O&M) - 7- college premises, as per details given by the complainant, do not attract the case of criminal intimidation, as spelled out in Section 503 IPC.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 14.5.2009 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. No costs.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE February 24,2012