IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.08.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA
Crl.O.P.No.17028 of 2004
& Crl.M.P.Nos.6085 & 6086 of 2004
Rajan ... Petitioner
Vs
State rep. By Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Tiruppur
(Crime No.3/2003) ` ... Respondent
* * *
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records in CC.No.86 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur and quash the charges framed against the petitioner.
* * *
For Petitioner : Mr.V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel
for Mr. R. John Sathyan
For Respondent : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
The Petitioner is the sole accused and he has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in C.C.No.82 of 2004 on the the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur.
2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated for the alleged offence under Sections 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegations contained in the complaint and other materials available on record taken in its face value, no offence is made out under Sections 420 and 506(1) I.P.C. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire case is purely of civil nature and even if the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and other materials available on record, there was no criminal transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant.
3. It is further submitted that there was a business transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant right from the year 1995 as the petitioner purchased elastic yarn from the complainant company and he was making periodical payments through cheque or cash and the petitioner was having running account in the course of the business transaction. It is contended that the claim of the defacto complainant is that the petitioner company owes an amount of Rs.10,23,086/-. It is submitted that the further allegation of the defacto complainant is to the effect that the petitioner called the defacto complainant to his office and stated to him that he does not owe any amount to be paid to him, in spite of that, he demands any money, he will be done away with. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the earlier complaint filed by the defacto complainant was referred as ‘mistake of fact’ stating that the remedy lies only before the Civil Court in view of the transaction said to have taken between the parties. It is submitted that thereafter the defacto complainant preferred a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the same was referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and ultimately F.I.R. was registered and final report was also filed implicating the petitioner herein as stated above.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner once again reiterated that the materials available on record do not constitute offence under Section 420 or 506(i) I.P.C. and the said dispute arises out of commercial transaction and as such remedy lies only before the Civil Court.
5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the materials available on record discloses that there was a commercial transaction between the parties viz., the petitioner and the defacto complainant and the main allegation is that the petitioner owes an amount of Rs.10,23,086/- to the defacto complainant during the course of the commercial transaction. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that there is an allegation of criminal intimidation in the F.I.R. and the same was alleged during the examination of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the impugned complaint and other materials available on record.
7. It is seen that the petitioner is the sole accused and he has been implicated for the alleged offence under Sections 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. The main allegation is to the effect that there was business transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant right from the year 1995 and the petitioner owes an amount of Rs.10,23,086/- to the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that when the defacto complainant demanded payment of such amount, the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. The undisputed fact remains to the effect that there was a business transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, and the main grievance in the complaint is that the petitioner owes an amount of Rs.10,23,086/-. It is crystal clear from the records that the entire dispute arising out of civil dispute and there is absolutely no allegation whatsoever to the effect that there was dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner even at the inception of the transaction. It is pertinent to note that as per the materials available on record, there was a long standing business transaction right from the year 1995 between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and it is also categorically stated by the defacto complainant in the complaint as well as in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner used to pay the amount periodically by cheque as well as by cash. Therefore, in the absence of any allegation to the effect of dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner even at the inception of the transaction, the question of cheating not at all arise.
8. The next allegation raised against the petitioner is alleged criminal intimidation. It is fairly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there is no whisper about the criminal intimidation in the complaint and such allegation was made subsequently during the course of examination of witnesses. It is seen that a bald and vague allegation of criminal intimidation was made only at a later stage and the same is nothing but an after-thought.
9. This Court in a decision reported in 1989 Crl.L.J.669 [Noble Mohandass v. State] has held as follows:
“further for being an offence under Sec. 506(2) which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. In fact P.W.1. when she filed the complaint to the police office, did not express any fear for her life nor asked for any protection.”
10. In a similar case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the proceedings in respect of the offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC in a case in Usha Bala V. State of Punjab (P&H) reported in 2002 (2) C.C.Cases (P&H) 320 that,
“Empty threats does not prima facie mean that the case u/s 506 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Hence, in face no case is made out against the petitioner.
Consequently, FIR No.313 dated 15.7.1999 u/s 406/498-A IPC of police Station, Sadar, Patiala is quashed qua the petitioner only.”
11. It is seen even in the instant case, except a vague and bald allegation of criminal intimidation, the defacto complainant has not stated that there was any threat to his life or sought for any police protection. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even the offence under Section 506(i) I.P.C is not maintainable.
12. In view of the above said reasons and in view of the principle of law laid down by this Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations levelled in the complaint do not constitute any offence under Section 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. and it is a clear case of abuse of process of Court and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly the petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.86 of 2004 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.
ggs/gg
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Tiruppur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Tiruppur.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras