Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. In  Anil Mehra  v.  Ajmer Singh, 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 699,   Hon'ble   Punjab   &   Haryana   High   Court   quashed   the   criminal proceedings on the ground that empty threats, without mens rea to cause injury would not amount an offence under Section 506 IPC.

11. In  Meen Raj  v.  State, represented though the Inspector of Police   [Crl.O.P.   (MD)   No.   10951   of   2012],   Hon'ble   Madras   High CR No.204417/2016 Ambika Oberoi v. Abdul Latif & Anr. Page No. 6 of 14 Court held/observed the defecto complainant's daughter arrayed as one of the witnesses and the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code,   revealed   that   the   petitioner   made   a   life   threat   to  the   second respondent  and his daughter; that it will not constitute any offence against the petitioner because the empty threats does not prima facie mean that the case under Section 506 IPC is made out against the petitioner.

13. Hence, for the offence of criminal intimidation punishable under   Section   506   IPC,   the   threat   should   be   a   real   one   and   same should not be empty. Further, it has to be shown that threats were made with an intent to cause alarm or that an alarm was caused to the complainant.  

14.   CW­1   Abdul   Latif   had   deposed   in   respect   of   criminal CR No.204417/2016 Ambika Oberoi v. Abdul Latif & Anr. Page No. 7 of 14 intimidation/threat that:

16. In   so   far   as   threat   given   by   Colonel   Rajesh   Kochar   is concerned, he has not been summoned by the learned Trial Court. In respect   of   incident   mentioned   in   the   testimony   of   CW­1   regarding forcibly entering into the house of complainant, wrongful confinement and beating, same has not been relied upon by the learned Trial Court. Revisionist   has   been   summoned   only   for   the   offence   of   criminal intimidation under Section 506/34 IPC. In respect of allegations of threatening by the revisionist regarding calling the police in case of work   is   not   stopped,   same   does   not   fall   in   definition   of   criminal intimidation   because   revisionist   is   asking/threatening   about   taking CR No.204417/2016 Ambika Oberoi v. Abdul Latif & Anr. Page No. 11 of 14 legal recourse. In so far as allegations of other threats as mentioned in testimony of CW­1 and CW­2 are concerned, same cannot be said to have been made with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant and his   family   members.   The   threats   as   have   been   alleged   by   the complainant and his son in their respective pre­summoning evidence are   empty   threats   without   mens   rea   to   cause   injury   and   from   that threats it cannot be said that threats were real and same have caused an alarm to the complainant and his family.