Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 05.01.2016, in respect of an incident which took place on 04.01.2016. Initially, it was lodged under Section 507 of the IPC and Section 66A of the I.T. Act, however, the charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 506B, 406, 420 and 34 of the IPC. In the FIR lodged by the complainant Mohammad Ali, it is alleged that he met with one Vinod Nischal at Bru Café Shop in Lokhandwala, Mumbai, who told him that he handles film promotion at a very low budget, and he also visited his office in Indore several times. Vinod then introduced the complainant NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19496 M.Cr.C. No.50261-2023 Mohammad Ali to Narendra Singh, Balkrishna, Haider Gola, and the petitioner herein viz., Dilip Deo. It is alleged that an agreement was also entered into between the complainant and these individuals for the purpose of film promotion, and money was also transferred by the complainant to various bank accounts designated by them, however, despite receiving the payments, they did not perform any work as per the contract, and also stopped answering the complainant's calls and began abusing and threatening him. It is further alleged that on 04.01.2016, between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 pm, the complainant received various calls on his mobile phone from Balkrishna, Haider Gola, and Dilip Deo, who threatened to kill him and warned him never to call any of them in the future, even by mistake, and also told him that if he wants to remain safe, he should forget about the money.

9] Counsel for the State, as also the objector, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer. Although, the objectors have not filed any reply to the petition.

10] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11] Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the FIR in the present case was lodged by the complainant Mohammad Ali on 05.01.2016, under Section 507 ( criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication) of the IPC and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against five persons, namely, Balkrishna, Haider Gola, Narendra Singh, Dilip Deo (present petitioner) and Vinod Nischal, alleging threatening calls given by the accused persons. On the face of it, it appears to be a sham FIR, as Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India reported as AIR 2015 SC 1523, even Section 507 of IPC would not be attracted because the calls, as alleged by the complainant, were not made by anonymous callers but specifically named accused persons. Thus, on an FIR which could not have been lodged in the first place, the applicant was arrested on 11.01.2016, and the final report was filed on 23.12.2017 under Sections 507, 506B, 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

16] It is also found that the Human Rights Commission vide its interim order dated 16.10.2017 has also imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on Police Station Birlagram Nagda.

17] It is difficult to believe that the complainant who was able to manage the police in such a manner, would feel threatened by some persons, who have no criminal antecedents, and who are also calling him from Mumbai. It is also found that there is nothing on record to suggest that there was actual telephonic conversation between the parties. Thus, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19496 M.Cr.C. No.50261-2023 only on the saying of the complainant, the Police has registered the FIR under Section 507 of IPC and Section 66A of the IT Act which could not have been invoked, without any demur and without referring the amount, which, according to the complainant, was given by him to the accused persons.

18] In such circumstances, this Court finds that the FIR in the present case was apparently lodged with mala fide intention only to recover money from the applicant in a case which had all the trappings of a civil dispute.

19] In such factual and legal circumstances, coupled with the orders passed by the S.P. Ujjain and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Borivali, Mumbai, this Court has no hesitation to allow the petition and quash the FIR lodged at Crime No.07/2016 at Police Station Birlagram, District Ujjain, under Section 507 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as also the subsequent charge- sheet under Sections 506B, 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as also the proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, Ujjain in Case No.29/2018, so far as it relates to the petitioner, with an exemplary cost of Rs.5 lakhs for all the suffering caused to the petitioner, to be paid by the State to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, with a further liberty to the State to recover the same from the delinquent police officers and the complainant in accordance with law.