Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY in Priyadharshini vs The Inspector Of Police on 2 December, 2022Matching Fragments
19.Mere threat alone will not be sufficient to invoke Section 506 (1) or Section 506(2) IPC. It had been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and very many decisions of various High Courts in India that to attract Section 506 (1) or Section 506(2) IPC, firstly, the threat shall be a real threat believed by the complainant. Secondly, the victim was really https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13829 of 2022 threatened. There was imminent danger to his/her life. For this proposition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cited reported ruling of this Court in the case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (I) CTC 300, wherein it had been stated as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13829 of 2022
i) In Rekha Jain Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 2268
ii) In Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K.Narayana Rao reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512
iii) In Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (I) CTC 300
iv) In Archana Rana Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 751.
45.On consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the contents of the FIR, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is found acceptable from the contents of the FIR attracting the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs.Ch.Bhajan Lal reported in (AIR) 1992 SC 604), where the guidelines had been issued for quashing of the FIR. Here, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, guideline number 7 is attracted. The ruling of this Court in the case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (I) CTC 300 regarding the ingredients of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13829 of 2022 Section 506 (2) IPC is attracted. Regarding the provisions of Sections 468, 406 and 428 IPC, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners even for argument's sake, if it is considered to have indulged in the offences attracting Sections 420, 406 IPC etc, the women members of the family of A1, Gavaskar cannot be arrayed as accused, as they are not employed by the defacto complainant prior to her leaving for United Kingdom and she had never handed over the properties to them.
50.In the light of the reported rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (I) CTC 300, in Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and another Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu and another reported in (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 203, in Rekha Jain Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in AIR https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13829 of 2022 2022 Supreme Court 2268, in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K.Narayana Rao reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512, in In Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (I) CTC 300 and in Archana Rana Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 751, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the reliance placed by him in Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 317, the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the second Respondent/defacto complainant in Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and another Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu and another reported in (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 203 and on perusal of the same, it is found that the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the second Respondent/defacto complainant cannot at all be accepted, as the defacto complainant had given an omnibus allegation against the Petitioners herein, who have no role regarding administration of the Teddy Exports and Teddy Trust.