Chandran v. State by Inspector of Police B-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANCrl.OP.No.30707/2006Cr.MP.No.1/2006Chandran..Petitioner/AccusedVs1.State by Inspector of Police B-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. (Crime No.790/2004)2.S.C.Selvakumari ..Respondents/Complainant &Defacto ComplainantPrayer:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482of Crl.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.540 of 2005 on the fileof the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore and quash the same.For Petitioner:Mr.M.V.Ashok Kumar, SC forMr.M.VijayakumarFor Respondent :Mr.S.Senthil Murugan for PP-R1M/s.Siavm Sivanand RajORDER This petition is filed to quash the proceedings inC.C.No.540/2005 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI,Coimbatore. 2. The 1st Respondent Police has filed a final reportagainst the petitioner on 17.11.204 before the learned Magistrate onthe basis of a complainant given by the 2nd Respondent herein for thealleged offence under section 506(i) of IPC and the same is pendingtrial in C.C.No.540/2005.3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on08.10.2004 at about 16.10. hours, at the upstairs of the House atNo.53, Damu Nagar, Puliakulam, Coimbatore, the petitioner is said tohave been entered into the house and threatened the 2nd respondent and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her son Sridharan and daughter Subhashini that they should vacate thehouse within 10 days or otherwise he would put them all in jail andhe would close every one of them.4. The petitioner is none other than the husband of the 2ndrespondent and the house, in which the occurrence is said to havetaken place, is his own house. According to the petitioner, he wasthe Managing Director of two companies namely (i) Puduthottam Estate(1943) Limited and (ii) Woodbriar Estate Limited and was holdingmaximum number of shares and as such he was controlling the companiesas well as the allied business. While so, he was forced and coercedto hand over signed blank share transfer forms to his daughterSubhashini, when she threatened that she would commit suicide, if theshares are not transferred in her favour. The petitioner would submitthat he went to London with the 2nd respondent to sort out thematrimonial dispute of his daughter Gajalakshmi. During his stay atLondon, the 2nd Respondent is said to have created a forged power ofattorney dated 03.09.2002 in favour of his son Sridharan and tookaway the entire control of the Companies. He would further submitthat on his return from London, he was taken to a rented house andwas illegally confined from 26.12.2002 to 10.1.2003 and through hisservant maid he came to know that the control of the companies hadbeen snatched away from him. He would further submit that he escapedfrom the said place and lodged a complaint before the Commissioner ofPolice and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.5. Thereafter several litigations were initiated by thePetitioner as well as the 2nd Respondent and a Company Petition isalso pending before the Company Law Board and Civil Court at Valparaiand as well as at Coimbatore, High Court and Honourable Supreme Court.6. Mr.M.V.Ashok Kumar, the learned senior counsel for thePetitioner submits that the case has been foisted against thepetitioner by the 2nd Respondent with a mala fide intention toachieve their evil desire and to desist him from taking effectivesteps to retrieve his property and to harass him to the maximumlevel. It was urged by the learned senior counsel that there aredisputes pending between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent beforethe civil court and criminal court from the year 2002 onwards withregard to dispossession of the control of the companies and otherproperties and a company petition is also pending at the instance ofthe Petitioner in CP.No.53/2004 before the Company Law Board and inthe said back ground the allegations made in the FIR is tainted withmala fide and intended only to harass him. He would submit in thesaid view of the matter that the continuance of the criminalproceedings against the Petitioner would be an abuse of process oflaw.7. It is strenuously contended by the learned seniorcounsel for the Petitioner that even if the allegation in the FIR is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, consideringthe relationship of the parties and dispute pending between them forso many years, the act of the Petitioner cannot be considered asdeliberate and an intentional one. The learned senior counselcontended that the Petitioner ought not to have been proceeded withthe criminal Prosecution under Section 506(i) of IPC, even assumingthat he has caused harm to the 2nd Respondent, as it was verytrivial. He would invoke the general exception made in Section 95 ofIPC in support of his contention. 8. On the other hand, Mr.Sivam Sivanand Raj, the learnedcounsel for the 2nd Respondent would contend that the final reportand the statement of the available witnesses clearly make out theingredients of Section 506(i) of IPC as against the Petitioner and insuch view of the matter, it is of no consequence to contend that thecomplaint was enmical and guilty of mala fides and the FIR/Chargesheet cannot be quashed merely on the ground of mala fide. He placedreliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- i.Dhanalakshmi Vs. R.Prasanna Kumar and others [AIR-1990-SC-494].ii.Aravindakshan and another Vs. State of Kerala andanother [1985-Cri.LJ-1389]iii.State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Ishwar PirajKalpatri and others [AIR-1996-SC-722]iv.Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and others[AIR-2001-SC-3846]v.State of HMOP.No. Vs. Pirthi Chand and another [1996-SCC-37)9. In this case, there is no dispute that themisunderstanding between the husband and the wife had been there forso many years, which had led to the initiation of criminalproceedings against each other and there is love lost between theparties. The severity of the strained relationship could be seenfrom the cases filed against each other in different forums. 10. The only question taken for determination is as towhether Section 95 of IPC could be invoked on the facts andcircumstances of the case, as contended by the learned seniorcounsel. Therefore, I am not inclined to go into the truthfulness orotherwise of the allegations made in the FIR nor as to whether thecomplaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. Therefore, thecitations referred to by the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondentare not adverted to, as there is no quarrel over the position of lawthat if the allegations set out in the complaint constitute the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ offence as alleged, then the criminal proceedings cannot be quashedby exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Code ofCriminal Procedure.11. It is seen from the FIR that the alleged commission ofact against the Petitioner is that he entered into the family houseat Door No.53, Damu Nagar, Coimbatore and threatened the 2ndRespondent and her children that they should vacate the house within10 days or otherwise he would put them all in jail and he would closeevery one of them.12. The expression "harm" has not been defined in the IPCin its dictionary meaning it connotes hurt; injury; damage;impairment; moral wrong or evil. The question which arises forconsideration is as to whether having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case, the harm caused to the 2nd Respondent andher children was so slight that no person of ordinary sense andtemper would complain of such harm.13. In the case of Noble Mohandass Vs. State [1989-Cr.LJ-669], this court has held that to attract an offence under Section506(i) of IPC, the threat should be a real one and not just mere aword when person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and alsowhen person at whom threat is launched does not feel threatenedactually. 14. In yet another decision reported in the case ofSaraswathi and another Vs. State [2002-Cri.LJ-1420]b, this court hasheld that asking a person not to work in a private garden andthreatening that person to go away from the garden would not satisfythe requirement of Section 506(i) of IPC.15. Section 95 of IPC is one under general exception inChapter 4. It provides thus:-"Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or thatit is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likelyto cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that noperson of ordinary sense and temper would complain ofsuch harm."16. Section 95 is intended to prevent penalization ofnegligible wrongs or of offence of trivial character. Whether anact, which amounts to an offence is trivial would depend upon thenature of the injury, the position of the parties, knowledge orintention with which the offending act is done and the relevantcircumstances. There are innumerable acts without performing ofwhich men cannot live together in the Society and acts which all menconstantly do and suffer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. In a decision rendered in the case of Devendrappa andanother Vs. The State of Mysore [1970-Cri.LJ-1188], the Petitionerswere alleged to have been trespassed into the land of the neighbourand caused a minor injury to the owner and his servant. It was heldthat even assuming that the Prosecution is wholly true, the crimethat the Petitioners committed was so trivial it falls within thescope of Section 95 of IPC. It is observed as follows:-"The law does not in this section concern itself withmatters too trivial to demand its notice about which menin their ordinary frame of mind do not complain. As amatter of fact, it is common experience that men livingin society must suffer some inconveniences andtransgressions without which no society is possible.That being so, it would be travesty of law to deal withsuch trivial matters as if they were crimes. It isbecause of this the law rightly exempted such trivialactions from the category of crimes. A close examinationof the provisions of this section shows that even theintentional causing of harm specified in that section isexcused because of its triviality. The word 'harm' nodoubt means injury of any kind, including injury to mind,body or property. It provides that in the normalcircumstances even if the injury to mind, body orproperty is caused and if the harm is so trivial, noperson of ordinary sense and temper would complain ofit."18. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been complainedof with rude behavior and had caused a threat to his family members,stating that they should vacate the house within 10 days or otherwisehe would put them all in jail and he would close every one of them.The harm complained in this case in my considered opinion is of sotrivial, as such incident ordinarily happens in most of the families,that too when the relationship between the spouses got strained dueto various factors.19. It is pertinent to point out that the Petitioner hasbeen kept away from the house and his properties, against which,there are several civil disputes pending between the parties. He isalso said to have lodged a criminal complaint before the Commissionerof Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore. As hehas been kept away from the house, apparently he got annoyed whichhad led him to go to his house and express his anguish, making suchutterances to his wife and son. Considering the nature of the act,relationship between the parties and other related circumstances, Iam of the considered view that the harm caused to the complainant istrivial in nature and the materials collected justified theconclusion that the injury was so slight that no person of ordinarysense and temper placed in the circumstances in which the complainant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and her children were placed may not reasonably complain for thatharm. Even assuming that the Prosecution case is wholly true, thecrime that the Petitioner had committed is so trivial that it fallswithin the scope of Section 95 of IPC.20. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned complaint inC.C.No.540 of 2005 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it isquashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, the connected MP is closed. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarSrcm To1. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore. 2. -do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police B-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.+ 2 c.cs. to Mr. M. Vijayakumaran, Advocate. S.R.No.32615.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. Sivam Sivanand Raj, Advocate. S.R.No.32602.Order inCrl.OP.No.30707/2006RSM (CO)GSK 10.08.2009.