Gujarat High Court
Ishaq Abdul Rehman Fatta & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 28 January, 2016
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/383/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 383 of 2015
==========================================================
ISHAQ ABDUL REHMAN FATTA & 2....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
========================================================================
Appearance:
MR MM SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED-REFUSED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 28/01/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Shah, the learned APP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1State of Gujarat. The respondent No.2 seems to have refused to accept the notice issued by this Court. An affidavit in that regard has been filed by the petitioner.
2. By this writapplication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: "A. Hon'ble Court be pleasedto issue appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of writ and be pleased to quash and set aside FIR registered at Bharuch BDivision Police Station vide FIR No. II70 of 2014.
B. Pending hearing, admission till final disposal of this petition Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings of an offence registered at Bharuch BDivision Police Station vide FIR No. II70 of 2014.
Page 1 of 5
HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Sun Jan 31 01:57:31 IST 2016
R/SCR.A/383/2015 ORDER
C. Grant such other and further relief/s which may deem fit to the Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."
3. It appears that the applicant No.1 is the father and the applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons. The first informant is a relative of the applicants. It appears that there is a matrimonial dispute going on as regards the other members of the family. A very short FIR dated 13th December, 2014 came to be lodged in that regard with the only allegation that threats were administered and the applicants are harassing the first informant and his family members time and again.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, I am of the view that no case is made out against the applicants herein. None of the ingredients to constitute an offence alleged are spelt out. No case is made out so far as the offence under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. Section 506 reads as under: "S. 506. 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;
and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Sun Jan 31 01:57:31 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/383/2015 ORDER any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 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.
5. The essential ingredients The offence of criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 I.P.C and Section 506 I.P.C 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 Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Sun Jan 31 01:57:31 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/383/2015 ORDER
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
6. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC 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 the accused had an intention to cause harm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused, not with an intention to cause harm 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 applicants, 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 harm to the first informant, and he felt actually threatened.
7. In the result, this application is allowed. The First Information Report being C.R. No.II70 of 2014 lodged before the Bharuch 'B' Division Police Station is quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
Page 4 of 5
HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Sun Jan 31 01:57:31 IST 2016
R/SCR.A/383/2015 ORDER
Manoj
Page 5 of 5
HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Sun Jan 31 01:57:31 IST 2016