Madras High Court
Sree Kaladevi vs %S.S.Michale on 18 December, 2017
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.12.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CRL.O.P(MD)No.2993 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
Sree Kaladevi ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
%S.S.Michale ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to call for records pertaining to S.T.C.No.84 of
2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai and
quash the same.
!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
^For Respondent : No appearance
:ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the case in S.T.C.No.84 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.
2. The case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner was working as District Registrar in the Registration Department, Agastheeswaram Taluk, one Rajam, who is the client of the respondent approached the petitioner for the purpose of getting birth certificate to her son, at that time the petitioner refused to register the birth certificate. Aggrieved by the same, the said Rajam filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, to direct the petitioner herein to register the birth of her son. The respondent herein appeared on behalf of the said Rajam in that case. After receipt of the said complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner. In response to the summons, the petitioner appeared on 04.10.2011. On the day, when the case was taken up for hearing, the respondent herein cross-examined the petitioner. During the cross-examination in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner abused the respondent as follows:
?;ePPq;fs; vy;yhk; fs;s tf;fPy;fs;;;' fs;s rh;ogpnfl; thq;fp gpiHg;g[ elj;Jk; fs;sf; Tl;lk;?
3. Again when the matter was called at 12.30 p.m., the petitioner started argument with the learned Magistrate and without answering the questions raised by the other side, voluntarily got down from the witness box. Hence, the respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzithurai.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the complaint would show that it is totally vague in nature. It is no-where stated the said nature of words said to have been used by the petitioner. The offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) and 354 of the Indian Penal Code have not been made out. Even assuming the petitioner has said something out of rage, it cannot be termed as a threat in the absence of any relevant materials. Even according to the respondent, the petitioner did not come with any arms and she did not attacked him. On the contrary, the respondent said to have been mentally disturbed by the oral outburst of the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) Srinivasan Vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2009 (4) MLJ (Crl) 1118.
(ii) Rajan Vs. State, rep. By Inspector of police reported in 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 258.
(iii) Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director and others Vs. Inspector of Police and another reported in 2006 (2) CTC 642.
(iv) Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (1) CTC 300.
5. Despite notice has been served on the respondent and his name has also been printed in the cause list, none appears on behalf of the respondent. The same is recorded.
6. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is the specific case of the respondent that filthy language was used by the Petitioner. Beyond this, he has not stated anything. It has been merely stated that the said occurrence is known to others, who are said to have been present in the Court. None of the witnesses have spoken about the specific words used by the petitioner. Thus, the complaint is totally vague, bereft of any materials, particularly not attracting the provisions of Section 294(b). It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner only made a oral threat. Thus, she has not used any weapon or arm.
7. Considering the scope of 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code in Srinivasan Vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2009 (4) MLJ (Crl) 1118, in paragraph No.11, this Court has held in the following manner:-
?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.?
8. In Rajan Vs. State, rep. By Inspector of police reported in 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 258, after taking note of the decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, this Court has held in the following manner:-
?10. In a similar case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the proceedings in respect of the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC in a case in Usha Bala Vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 2002 (2) C.C.Cases 320 (P & H), that, ?Empty threats does not prima facie mean that the case under Section 506, IPC is made out against the petitioner. Hence, in face no case is made out against the petitioner.
Consequently, FIR No.313, dated 15.07.1999 under Section 406/498-A, IPC of police station, Sadar, Patiala is quashed qua the petitioner only.?
11.It is seen even in the instant case, except a vague and bald allegation of criminal intimidation, the defacto complainant has not stated that there was any threat to his life or sought for any police protection.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even the offence under Section 506(i), I.P.C is not maintainable.?
9. In Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director and others Vs. Inspector of Police and another reported in 2006 (2) CTC 642, this Court, while dealing with the effect of a bald allegation, it has been held as follows:-
?19......... Very bald allegation has been made that on enquiry the accused 1 to 3 threatened to kill him. Such a stock version cannot be given much credence at all.?
10. Similar views were also expressed by this Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (1) CTC 300, wherein it has been held that a mere outburst is not sufficient to bring a case within the mischief of Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code.
11. Considering the above reported judgments and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to set aside the proceedings in question and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.T.C.No.84 of 2012 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kuzhithurai, stands quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.
.