Gujarat High Court
Hardik Jayantibhai Rathod vs The State Of Gujarat on 27 October, 2020
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
R/CR.MA/10052/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10052 of 2020
==========================================================
HARDIK JAYANTIBHAI RATHOD
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI(1077) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 27/10/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Though served, the respondent no.2 has chosen not enter her appearance either through an advocate or party-in-person. This Court had earlier adjourned the matter on the very same ground.
2. Learned APP has forwarded the papers of the charge-sheet. The same are ordered to be taken on record.
3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent-State.
4. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the 'Code'), the applicants pray for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being C.R.No.11203025200697 of 2020 registered with Junagadh Taluka Police Station, District Junagadh for the offence punishable under Sections 294(B), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
5. The brief facts of the present case leading to filing of the present application are as under:-
Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 08:42:13 IST 2020R/CR.MA/10052/2020 ORDER 5.1. There was a dispute between husband and wife i.e. respondent no.2 and accordingly, she has filed a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC against more than 13 persons, including uncle-in-law, sisters-in-law, who are married, and also brothers-in-law, who are residing separately .
6. Learned advocate Mr.Shakeel Qureshi for the applicants has further submitted that prima facie looking to the FIR as it is, none of the ingredients of sections 294(B), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC are made out and filing of the FIR is nothing but a counter-blast to the protection granted by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.29908 of 2017. He has submitted that even otherwise looking to the charge under Section 506(2) of the IPC, no ingredient of criminal intimidation is made out as there is no furtherance of any further act which has been alleged to have been made by the accused. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Manik Taneja V/s. State of Karnataka, 2015 (7) SCC 423 and in the case of VikramJohar V/s. State of Gujarat, AIR 2019 SC 2109, in support of his submissions.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed to quash and set aside the FIR looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. She has submitted that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is already filed.
8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
9. Section 503 of the IPC defines "criminal intimidation", which reads as under:
"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 Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 08:42:13 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/10052/2020 ORDER 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. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation."
10. Section 506 of the IPC prescribes for "Punishment for criminal intimidation", which reads as under:
"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."
11. I may with profit refer to the observations made by this Court in the case of Mehul Chunibhai Choksi vs State of Gujarat, reported in 2018(1) GLR 349. This Court while examining the provision of section 503 of the IPC has held thus:
"The essential ingredients The offence of criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for it. Section 503 reads 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 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 threats, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation: A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the persons threatened is interested, is within this section. An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:
1. Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2. The threat must be with intent; (i) to cause alarm to that person; or (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause that person to Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 08:42:13 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/10052/2020 ORDER omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. 46 A bare perusal of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant, but with a view to deterring him from interfering with the work of construction of the wall, which was undertaken by the accused applicant, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. In the entire FIR, there is no whisper of any allegation that the threats which were administered actually caused any alarm to the first informant and he felt actually threatened."
As regards the offence under section 506(2) of the IPC is concerned, no offence is said to have been established against the applicants in the present case since the contents of the FIR reveal that the alleged criminal intimidation has not caused any alarm to the complainant. It is settled proposition of law that mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. The complainant has not stated that the criminal intimidation caused her such a degree of alarm and he actually felt threatened that the applicants will actually cause injury to him. The delay of five days in lodging the FIR would itself be fatal for satisfying the ingredients of section 503 of the IPC, if the same is not satisfactorily explained. No explanation for delay has been tendered by the complainant. It appears that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged with oblique motive to wreck vengeance against the applicants due to their rivalry, hence the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
12. As regards the offence under Section 294B of the IPC is concerned, a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that no offence is established against the present applicants as the same does not have any reference to the specific words uttered by the present applicants against the complainant. The statements of the witnesses also do not reveal any specific utterance and only a general reference with regard to using of an abusive language is Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 08:42:13 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/10052/2020 ORDER referred in the statement of the witnesses as well as in the FIR.
13. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R.No.11203025200697 of 2020 registered with Junagadh Taluka Police Station, District Junagadh and all other consequential proceedings arising out of said FIR are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants only. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
14. Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authority and the concerned Court about the present order by sending a copy of this order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.
15. Learned advocate for the applicants is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail authority and the concerned Court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NEHA GUPTA///ABHISHEK
Page 5 of 5
Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 08:42:13 IST 2020