Gujarat High Court
Ronak Ashokbhai Kedia vs State Of Gujarat & on 19 November, 2014
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/CR.MA/4145/2012 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 4145 of 2012
================================================================
RONAK ASHOKBHAI KEDIA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SALIL M THAKORE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. PUNANI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 19/11/2014
ORAL ORDER
Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Punani, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 State of Gujarat.
2. It appears that the respondent No.2 original first informant was being represented by an advocate, however, later on the learned advocate retired from the matter making a statement that he had handed over the papers to his client. Such statement was recorded by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2014, and fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent No.2 first informant, making it returnable on 19.11.2014 i.e. today.
3. Mr. Salil Thakore, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that he had effected the direct service of the order dated 12.11.2014 upon the respondent No.2 and he has also filed an affidavit of direct service. It appears that despite service of notice issued by this Court, the Page 1 of 5 R/CR.MA/4145/2012 ORDER respondent No.2 has thought fit not to appear either in person or through an advocate.
4. By this application, the applicantoriginal accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of the F.I.R registered vide C.R No.II 3080/12 dated 15.3.2012, lodged by the respondent No.2 at Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 294(a) and 506(1), read with Section 114 of the IPC.
5. The case of the first informant made out in the FIR may be summarized as under: 5.1 The first informant is engaged in the business of sale of clothes in the name of Sai Shakthi Garments. Adjoining his place of work, is survey No. 306 of the ownership of the father of the applicant herein. It is further stated that on 29.1.2012 in the morning at around 7.30 while he was at his residence, an employee working in his garment unit, namely Sulemanbhai Panchwani called him up and informed that the father of the applicant herein and others were putting up construction of a wall between the unit of the first informant and the boundary of survey No. 306. The first informant, upon receipt of such information, immediately rushed at his factory and saw that the father of the applicant and the applicant himself both were present. The applicant told them that they were not doing something right and asked them to stop the work of construction of the wall. It is alleged that the applicant herein and his father got enraged and started hurling abuses. They further stated that if the first informant would intervene, then they would bury him. It is further stated that thereafter, the first informant went to the Police Station and lodged the report.
6. On the basis of such allegations referred to above, the FIR was registered for the offence stated above.
Page 2 of 5R/CR.MA/4145/2012 ORDER
7. Mr. Thakore, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the incident had occurred on 29.1.2012, for which the FIR came to be lodged on 15.3.2012 i.e. almost after a period of 45 days and there is no explanation worth the name for lodging the FIR after such a long delay at the end of the first informant. According to him, the unexplained gross delay in filing the FIR itself casts a doubt as regards the genuineness of the FIR.
8. Section 294 of the IPC is with respect to obscene acts and songs and it reads as under: "294. Obscene acts and songs. Whoever, to the annoyance of others
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
9. In my opinion, even if the entire case of the first informant is accepted, none of the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 294(a) IPC could be said to have been spelt out. What is complained of in the first information report could not be termed as an obscene act. Therefore, there is no question of commission of any offence under Section 294(a) of the IPC.
10. The above takes me to consider whether any case is made out so far as the offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC 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 Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/4145/2012 ORDER destruction of 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.
11. 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
(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.
Page 4 of 5R/CR.MA/4145/2012 ORDER
12. 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 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.
13. In my view, even none of the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 506(2) IPC are spelt out.
14. In the result, this application is allowed. The FIR registered vide C.R No. II3080/12 before the Vatva Police Station for the offence under Sections 294(a) and 506(1) read with Section 114 of the IPC is hereby ordered to be quashed.
All consequential proceedings pursuant thereto also stand terminated. Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
Mohandas
Page 5 of 5