Delhi District Court
Chetan Prakash Sharma vs State/Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 20/12
Chetan Prakash Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Sharma ......Revisionist
Vs.
State/Govt. Of NCT of Delhi. ........ Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.09.2011
Date of Arguments : 07.12.2012
Date of Order : 11.12.2012
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order on charge dated 27.05.2011 passed by Ld. MM (NE), KKD Courts, Delhi in the case FIR No. 92/2005 u/s 506 IPC PS New Usman Pur "titled as State Vs. Chetan Prakash Sharma" by virtue of which the Ld. MM observed that an offence u/s 506 IPC is made out against the petitioner/accused and accordingly framed charge against him under the said section, the Revisionist has preferred the instant Revision petition on 02.09.2011.
2. Briefly stated, the accusation against the Revisionist is based on the complaint dated 22.03.05 lodged by the complainant Sh. Rishi Pal Singh with ACP, North East, Delhi, on the basis of which the FIR dated 24.03.05 was registered at PS New Usman Pur u/s 506/34 IPC. In the FIR which is verbatim of the aforesaid complaint dated 22.03.05, the complainant has alleged about the incident that took place on 18.03.05 at around 10.30 p.m on the shop of the complainant. The said complaint/FIR inter-alia reads as under :
Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs. State, CR NO. 20/12 1/10 "Hon. Sir, on 18.03.05 at around 10.30 p.m when I was on my shop, above said Chetan Prakash Sharma with two other persons came to my shop and told me to withdraw complaint made by me against him and to compromise with him. He also told that I will see Pradeep Kumar. Then he started abusing to Sh. Pradeep Kumar and Sh. Basant Lal stating with that :
"MAI DEKHUNGA MERA KAUN KYA BIGAD LEGA" and "LOAN LENA AUR POLICE KO SET KARNA TO MERE ULTE HATH KA KAAM HAI".
After the FIR was registered, the Investigating Officer Sh. T. R Meena recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr. P.C. Then after completion of investigation, charge sheet was presented and thereafter vide the impugned order the charge u/s 506 IPC was directed to frame against the accused and charge was framed accordingly.
3. The Revisionist is assailing the impugned order on the following grounds :
(a) the Ld. MM while passing the impugned order, exercised the jurisdiction illegally and committed grave errors of law and facts. The impugned order is erroneous, bad in law, unsustainable and the same is against the law and facts of the case and contrary to the material available on record.
(b) It has not been appreciated that the allegations made in the complaint/FIR registered against the petitioner, even if accepted on their face value failed to satisfy the ingredients required for an offence u/s 506 IPC and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an order of discharge in his favour on this ground alone.
(c) Ld. Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 27.05.2011 inter-alia observed that :
"The Ld. Counsel for accused draws attention on the complaint filed by the complainant to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and has Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs. State, CR NO. 20/12 2/10 stated that the complainant in his complaint has alleged that Sh. Pradeep Kumar and Basant Lal has threatened him by saying, "MAI DEKHUNGA MERA KAUN KYA BIGAD LEGA" and "LOAN LENA AUR POLICE KO SET KARNA TO MERE ULTE HATH KA KAAM HAI".
On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that the specific allegations are made out against the present accused.
It is crystal clear from the foregoing that though, while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Magistrate recorded the contention of the petitioner that even if the aforesaid allegations made in the complaint/FIR are taken at their face value, in that event also, they do not make out a case u/s 506 IPC against the petitioner, the Ld. Magistrate however, failed to return any finding on the aforesaid contention of the petitioner.
(d) the offence of Criminal Intimidation punishable under Section 506 IPC has been defined under section 503 IPC 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 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."
The bare perusal of the impugned order dated 27.05.2011 reveals that the same has been passed in a routine and mechanical manner without appreciating that neither there was any criminal intimidation nor there was Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs. State, CR NO. 20/12 3/10 any threat of death or of any grievous hurt extended by the petitioner/Revisionist to the complainant so as to attract the provisions of section 506 IPC against the petitioner.
(e) a grave error has been committing by not appreciating that u/s 506 IPC the threat must be real in the sense that the accused should be what he says and the victim of the threat should be threatened actually. A threat with mens rea to cause injury is an essential ingredient of an offence u/s 506 IPC. Mere empty does not fulfill the requirement of section 506 IPC.
(f) the impugned order has been passed without referring to the various judgments relied upon by the counsel for petitioner i.e 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports, 518 titled as "Ram Niwas Kosalia Vs. Narender Kumar Jain" wherein it was observed/held that :
"..... it is no clear from the words "Mein Deikh Looga" or "Theek Hai Deikh Looga" that what kind of threat was extended to the complainant by the petitioner on this telephonic talk. From this conversation, nothing can be made out as to what injury to the person, reputation or property of the complainant was extended by the petitioner. Even if this conversation is taken to be true, as the most it can be termed as an empty threat. No mens rea on the part of the petitioner can be attributed to him. Similarly, nothing can be made out as to with what intent the said threatening was done. In fact, the contents of the whole conversation make out no case against the petitioner of an intent to cause any alarm or harm to the person or property of the complainant. As stated above, a threat with mens rea to cause injury is an essential ingredient of an offence under section 506 IPC. In my considered opinion, the said essential ingredient are badly missing."
Similarly the judgment relied upon by the Revisionist i.e 1993 Criminal law Journal, 85 titled as Mohinder singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana wherein it was observed that :
"...... This contention of Ld. Counsel is valid. Since no threat was Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs. State, CR NO. 20/12 4/10 issued by any of the petitioners to cause death or grievous hurt to the complainant, they could not be held guilty of the offence u/s 506 IPC. I, therefore, acquit them of this charge."
(g) It has not been appreciated Had the complainant been alarmed and/or threatened with the alleged threat of the petitioner given to him on 18.03.05 at about 10.30 p.m, in that event, the complainant would have immediately lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the police, However, it was not done so, rather the complainant in a pre planned manner, in collusion with the police to falsely implicate the petitioner, lodged a written complaint with ACP on 22.03.05 i.e after four days of the alleged incident which speaks volumes about the conspiracy behind the registration of FIR in question.
(h) It has not been appreciated that the complainant himself has alleged in the complaint/FIR that on 18.03.2005 at around 10.30 p.m, the petitioner had come to the shop of the complainant along with two other persons. The FIR was registered by the police u/s 506/34 IPC. The petitioner however, submits that the charge sheet was filed by the police u/s 506 IPC only against the petitioner, Till this date, it is not known as to who were those two persons who had allegedly gone to the shop of the complainant along with the petitioner, as alleged in FIR.
4. The notice of the revision petition was issued to the State/Respondent and it made its appearance through Ld. Addl. PP.
5. I have heard the respective rival submissions of Ld. Counsels for the revisionist and also of the Respondent. I have also perused the entire material placed on record including the record summoned from the trial court.
6. As per submissions made on behalf of respondent/State the impugned Revision petition, as filed is devoid of merits as it has been failed to Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs. State, CR NO. 20/12 5/10 point out any material infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court and as such the instant revision is liable for dismissal. There are specific allegations made out by the complainant against the Revisionist. Further the complainant has given the statement that the Revisionist has threatened him for killing and to face dire consequences to which the complainant got alarmed. More over, it is well settled that at the preliminary stage of trial i.e framing of charge, the court is required to see only the prima facie material on record and it cannot shift the material proposed to be led by the prosecution to find out the guilt of the accused or otherwise. Further the charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion. Thus, the Revision as preferred has no substance and therefore, the same is liable to fail.
On the other hand, assailing the validity of the impugned order Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist has strenuously urged that the materials collected by the prosecuting agency do not constitute the offence of section 506 IPC against the Revisionist and the Ld. Magistrate committed a manifest illegality in framing the impugned charge against the Revisionist. The impugned order cannot be sustained anymore as the same is bad in the eyes of law and contrary to the facts of the case. Firstly the allegations made in the complaint/FIR registered against the Revisionist, even if accepted on their face value fail to satisfy the ingredients required for an offence u/s 506 IPC. Neither there was any criminal intimidation nor there was any threat of death or of grievous hurt extended by the Revisionist to the complainant so as to attract the section 506 IPC against the complaint. The alleged threat extended by the Revisionist termed at the most the empty threat as the mens rea to cause injury is missing in the present set of circumstances. Further from the words allegedly used by the Revisionist it is not clear that what kind of threat was extended to the complainant by the petitioner as nothing can be made out as to what injury to the person, reputation or property of the complainant was extended by the Revisionist. Even if, the aforesaid statement/words are taken to be proved, at the most it can be termed as an empty threat. Since the essential ingredients of section 506 IPC are missing so, the impugned order is Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs. State, CR NO. 20/12 6/10 unsustainable and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. It is well settled that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to marshal the evidence and record a finding that the materials collected by the prosecuting agency are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if, fully accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed a particular offence. In such case there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial [J. T (1990) 3 SC 408, (1977) 4 SCC 39, (1979) 3 SCC 4 and (1979) 4 SCC 374].
8. Bearing in my mind the said principles and carefully perusing the entire material placed before me and also having heard the rival submissions I find that there is a substance in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist that the impugned order dated 27.05.2011 is erroneous, bad in law and unsustainable and is therefore, liable to be set aside for the reasons that the allegations made in the complaint/FIR registered against the Revisionist even if accepted on their face value does not satisfy the ingredients required for an offence u/s 506 of IPC.
The offence of Criminal Intimidation punishable under Section 506 IPC has been defined under section 503 IPC 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 avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation - A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs. State, CR NO. 20/12 7/10 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."
In the instant case neither there was any criminal intimidation nor there was any threat of death or of grievous hurt extended by the Revisionist to the complainant so as to attract the section 506 IPC against the complainant. Further the threat must be real in the sense that the accused should mean what he says and the victim of the threat should be threatened actually. A threat with mens rea to cause injury is an essential ingredient of the offence u/s 506 IPC and mere empty threat does not fulfill the requirements of section 506 of IPC.
In 1988 (3) Crimes (Bombay) 319 titled as V. M. Sanghi and anr. Vs. R. G Tiwari and anr., it has been held that :
"a mere threat is not sufficient to attract the charge of criminal intimidation. The threat should be given with intent to cause alarm to the person threatened."
Further, from the words "MAI DEKHUNGA MERA KAUN KYA BIGAD LEGA" and "LOAN LENA AUR POLICE KO SET KARNA TO MERE ULTE HATH KA KAAM HAI", it is not clear that what kind of threat was extended to the complainant by the petitioner as nothing can be made out as to what injury to the person, reputation or property of the complainant was extended by the Revisionist. Even if, the aforesaid statement/words are taken to be proved, at the most it can be termed as an empty threat. No mens rea on the part of the petitioner can be attributed to him. Similarly, nothing can be made out as to with what intent the said threatening was done.
In 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports, 518 (P & H) titled as Ram Niwas Kosalia Vs. Narender Kumar Jain, it has been held that :
"threat by accused uttering "Mein Deikh Looga" or "Theek Hai Deikh Looga" that what kind of threat was extended to the Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs. State, CR NO. 20/12 8/10 complainant by the petitioner on this telephonic talk. From this conversation, nothing can be made out as to what injury to the person, reputation or property of the complainant was extended by the petitioner. Even if this conversation is taken to be true, as the most it can be termed as an empty threat. No mens rea on the part of the petitioner can be attributed to him. Similarly, nothing can be made out as to with what intent the said threatening was done. In fact, the contents of the whole conversation make out no case against the petitioner of an intent to cause any alarm or harm to the person or property of the complainant. As stated above, a threat with mens rea to cause injury is an essential ingredient of an offence under section 506 IPC. In my considered opinion, the said essential ingredient are badly missing."
Further, the complainant has nowhere stated in his complaint that the alleged threat had caused an alarm to him. Further the fact that the complainant had preferred his complaint four days after the date of alleged incident itself reflect that there was no alarm in the mind of complainant and the complaint was an afterthought.
In 2000 IV AD (Delhi) 501 titled as Kanshi Ram Vs. State, it has been held that :
".......the exact words used by the petitioner were "Maro Salon Ko". Strangely enough, Israr Ahmed has nowhere stated in his statement that the alleged threat had caused an alarm to him. On the contrary the circumstances of the case clearly go to show that even after the alleged threat, the complainant or other media persons did not retrace their steps. It is well settled that more threat is no offence. That being so the threat alleged to have been given by the petitioner does not fall within the mischief of section 506 IPC. Consequently, no charge under section 506 IPC can be framed against the petition on the basis Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs. State, CR NO. 20/12 9/10 of the said evidence."
In the instant case the contents of the whole statement make out no case against the Revisionist of an intent to cause any alarm or harm to the person or property of the complainant as a threat with mens rea to cause injury is an essential ingredient of an offence u/s 506 IPC and since the said essential ingredients are badly missing in the instant case so no case is made out for framing of charge against the Revisionist, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. In view of the aforesaid the impugned order as passed by Ld. Trial Court and also the charge framed against the Revisionist cannot be sustained anymore and as such they are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the Revisionist is discharged and his bail bond is also discharged.
10. The copy of this order along with TCR be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information.
The Revision file be consigned to Record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced in Open court ( RAKESH KUMAR )
on 11th December, 2012 Addl. Sessions Judge/North East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs. State, CR NO. 20/12 10/10