Punjab-Haryana High Court
Makam H.A vs State Of Haryana And Another on 19 February, 2013
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Misc.-M No. 598 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.-M No. 598 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 19.02.2013
Makam H.A. .....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner claims to be renowned businessman and exporter of Mumbai. He is 66 years old. As per the petitioner, he belongs to reputed family. Otherwise, he is having no issue but has ailing wife. He also claims to be thoroughly religious and income tax payee. He is accused of committing offence under Section 506 IPC.
It is alleged that when respondent No. 2 was in Mai Jee colony, Panipat, he received threatening call from the petitioner. Since the complainant knew the petitioner, he could make out that the voice of the petitioner. The alleged threatening call and the Criminal Misc.-M No. 598 of 2011 (O&M) 2 words used therein are to the effect that the petitioner will not pay single penny to the complainant and if he demanded any amount his family will be killed by the petitioner. From this, the petitioner would urge that this in itself would show that there was some business transaction between the petitioner and respondent and, thus, the dispute, if any, is of civil nature.
The complainant has also alleged that he received threatening call on 01.10.2009 whereas this FIR was lodged on 21.10.2009 after gap of 20 days. As per the complainant, when he received this threatening call, Anirudh Aggarwal was present with him. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has got registered this FIR in connivance with the local police out of greed and to harass and humiliate the petitioner. Otherwise, the petitioner has no concern with any call, which may or may not have been made to the complainant/respondent No. 2.
There seems to be some justification in the stand taken by the petitioner. He has rightly raised a grievance that this FIR has been registered at Panipat whereas transaction of threat was advanced at Mumbai. The call, if any, perhaps was initiated from Mumbai. The police without much justification has added Section 384 IPC whereas no offence under the said Section, on the admitted facts, would be made out. The petitioner would plead highhandedness on the part of the local police, which had suddenly arrested him on 10.02.2010 from his residence and got seven blank papers signed from him at Mumbai in private factory at Panipat having advanced threat at pistol point by the local police. The Criminal Misc.-M No. 598 of 2011 (O&M) 3 petitioner, accordingly, has filed this petition for quashing this FIR on the ground that bare perusal of the FIR would not reveal the offences alleged against the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner had made reference to the Section 384 IPC to urge that it would not at all be attracted. Counsel would also contend that even if it is accepted that some threatening call is made to the complainant, it would not reveal an offence as such threat was not advanced in the immediate presence of the complainant or on face to face basis.
Notice was issued to the State even further proceedings before the trial Court have been stayed. Reply on behalf of the State has been filed though copy thereof is not on record. Copy of the reply has been taken from the State counsel and is kept on record.
The State would take a usual stand. This FIR was registered on a complaint made to the police alleging that when the complainant was at Mai Jee Colony, Panipat, he received a call on his mobile phone from the mobile phone of the petitioner. The respondent knew the petitioner and then the threatening words used are repeated. As per the allegation, the petitioner had threatened the complainant that he had links with LTTE and will get his house blasted by putting RDX. He is alleged to have used some filthy abuses, which ofcourse are not mentioned in the complaint or the FIR. He has made Anirudh Aggarwal as his witness as the other call was received in his presence.
Whether a call given on telephone from such a remote place with potential threat would attract Section 506 IPC is a question Criminal Misc.-M No. 598 of 2011 (O&M) 4 and out of blew the police has added offence under Section 384 IPC making the case of extortion against the petitioner, which is without any justification. The petitioner carries long list of his grievance and in this regard has made an application to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate to which reference is made during the course of arguments. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in another case registered by the CBI, where he is accused of advancing threats to some other person. It is also disclosed in the reply that the matter was fully inquired into and finding the petitioner guilty, the challan was presented. Even the charges have been framed by the trial Court.
It may have to be seen if offences, as alleged against the petitioner, would be made out from the FIR and the allegation made in this regard.
Section 384 IPC provides punishment for extortion. The extortion is defined in Section 383 IPC as under:-
" Whosoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion".
Even the bare reading of the allegations made in the FIR would not show that the petitioner by advancing threat of putting the complainant to fear of injury has induced him to deliver any property or valuable security. He has also not asked him to sign or seal Criminal Misc.-M No. 598 of 2011 (O&M) 5 anything which may be converted into valuable security. Accordingly, no offence under Section 384 IPC would be made out against the petitioner, from the perusal and even reading of FIR in a best possible manner, I wonder how the trial Court has framed the charge under Section 384 IPC. To an extent, it would reflect non-application of mind.
The other offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. Section 504 IPC punishes an intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. As per the State counsel, Section 504 IPC would be attracted to the facts of the case as the petitioner had used abusive language on telephone call that he gave to the respondent. The Section, however, apparently is providing for some different situation. This Section provides that, whosoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to breach of the public peace, would be guilty of offence under this Section. It is not even alleged that the word, which was used by the petitioner, was with intention to provoke the complainant to indulge in breach of peace. In my view, the offence under Section 504 IPC would also not be attracted as per the allegations made in the FIR.
So far as the charge of criminal intimidation is concerned, this also, apparently, is too remote. The person giving telephone call from Mumbai would hardly be in any position to advance any effective threat at such a far off place. Apparently, there was business transaction between the petitioner and complainant and Criminal Misc.-M No. 598 of 2011 (O&M) 6 mere receipt of call would not mean that use of words as alleged in the FIR stands proved. In this regard, except for the evidence of the complainant, nothing else would be there to support the allegation. The submission that the conversation was in the presence of other witness would again be not worthy of reliance as telephonic call between two persons can hardly be heard by any person even if he is present in vicinity. In my view, the allegations against the petitioner have been stretched. No offence against the petitioner for the offences alleged is made out.
Even one of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal JT 1990 (4) SC 650 to quash the complaint or FIR are 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. In my view, the case will fit into this parameter.
The present petition is, accordingly, allowed. FIR No. 1099 dated 21.10.2009 registered under Sections 384, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station City Panipat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
February 19, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE