Srinivasan v. State by Sub Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Ambur, Vellore District & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANCrl.OP.No.14940/2006Cr.MP.No.1/2006SrinivasanPetitioner Vs1.State by Sub Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Ambur, Vellore District 2.Shanthi (R-2 impleaded as per order of Court dated 13.7.09 in M.P.1/08)RespondentsPrayer:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for therecords of FIR and quash the same against the Petitioner inCr.NO.9/2006 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, All WomenPolice Station, Ambur, Vellore District. For Petitioner:Mr.R.Sankara SubbuFor Respondents:Mr.S.Senthil Murugan for PP-R1Mr.M.Premkumar-R2ORDER The Petitioner, who is as an advocate practicing at VelloreDistrict, has filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash thecomplaint registered in Cr.NO.9/2006 on file of the RespondentPolice.2. The case of the Prosecution in brief is as follows:-The complainant one Shanthi, who is the 2nd Respondentherein, lodged a complaint on 18.4.2006 complaining that oneSivakumar had promised to marry her and had sexual relationshipwith her, but refused to marry her at the instigation of hisbrother Jayasimhan. Apprehending arrest, Jayasimhan and Sivakumarhad moved for anticipatory bail in Cr.MP.No.3647/2006 and when itcame up before the Sessions Court at Vellore, as the RespondentPolice made an endorsement that the complainant's petition wasclosed after enquiry, the said petition for anticipatory bail wasclosed. 3. Again the defacto complainant Shanthi had preferredanother complaint against Sivakumar that he refused to marry her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and it was alleged that on 21.4.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. Sivakumarand some Panchayatars forced her not to proceed with the complaintagainst Sivakumar and also threatened her not to insist formarriage. In the said complaint, the allegation is made againstthe advocate, the Petitioner herein that on the same day he hadfiled an application for anticipatory bail for the accusedSivakumar and threatened her that she should not insist for themarriage with Sivakumar. 4. The Petitioner submits that on 21.4.2006, he wasphysically present before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Vellore at about 10.30 a.m. and appeared in SC.No.47/2004 andthereafter, he filed an application in CMP.No.3647/2006 foranticipatory bail for the accused Sivakumar. He would further statethat thereafter at about 2.00 p.m. on 21.4.2006, he cast his voteduring the Bar Association Election at Vellore. On the whole dayfrom 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. he was in the District Court Campus atVellore and it is not possible for him to be in the VadacheriVillage, as it is 70 kms away from the District Court and theallegation made by the complainant that he was present as one amongthe Panchayatars and threatened her is motivated in order to deterhim from discharging his professional duty as an advocate.5. Mr.A.Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel for thePetitioner would submit that even if the allegation made in the FIRis taken as it is, it does not attract any offence against thePetitioner under Section 506(i) of IPC and therefore, the FIR asagainst him is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel insupport of his contention relied on the decisions rendered in thecases of Amulya Kumar Behera Vs. Nabaghana Behera alias Nabina andothers [1995-Cri.L.J-3559], Noble Mohandass Vs. State [1988-STPL-LE-Crim-12877-MAD] and Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao & Others Vs. Stateof AP and another [2007-Cri.LJ-1204] that when there is no specificallegation against the Petitioner that he had threatened thecomplainant with injury to her person, reputation or property, theingredients of Section 506 of IPC are not attracted and thecomplaint in so far as the Petitioners are concerned cannot besustained.6. In the case of M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries(Madras) Pvt Limited by its Director A.R.Santhanakrishnan Vs.Inspector of Police, Team IV, Central Crime Branch, Egmore,Chennai-8 and three others [2006-1-LW-Crl-307], it is held thatvery bald allegation made on the enquiry that the accused 1 to 3threatened to kill him would be a stock version and it cannot begiven much credence at all to such threat.7. Criminal intimidation, as defined in Section 503 of IPCis the act of threatening with intent to cause alarm to a person orto cause a person to do any act which is not legally bound to do orto omit to do any act which a person is legally entitled to do, asthe means of avoiding the execution of such threat. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. It is no doubt true that the High Court should not actas an investigation agency at the stage when the FIR is underinvestigation or enter into the factual arena while quashing thecomplaint under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Keeping the above mentioned principles in mind, theprimary question which arises for consideration in this CriminalOriginal Petition is as to whether the allegations, made in the FIRor the complaint even they are taken on their face value andaccepted in its entirety, make out a case against the accused ornot. For determination of this question, it is relevant to note thenature of the offence alleged, its ingredients and the avermentsmade in the complaint.10. Even assuming that the accused Petitioner movedanticipatory bail for the accused Sivakumar before the SessionsCourt at Vellore and threatened the defacto complainant not toinsist for marriage with the accused Sivakumar, as an advocate,the Petitioner has discharged his professional function and thatcannot be taken as a threat made to the complainant. 11. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 506 ofIPC, the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to thevictim. Mere expression of words without any intention to causealarm would not suffice. To constitute an offence under Section 506of IPC, it must be shown that the person charged actuallythreatened another with injury to his person, reputation orproperty with an intention to cause alarm. 12. In this case, even if the allegations in the complaintare read as a whole and are accepted in their entirety as true, theingredients of Section 506 of IPC are not attracted in so far asthe Petitioner herein is concerned. On the mere allegation thatthe Petitioner had moved the anticipatory bail to the accusedSivakumar without taking efforts to insist him to marry the defactocomplainant, it can never be said that he had threatened thedefacto complainant with an intention to cause injury to her,person or reputation or property with an intention to cause alarmto her.13. For the above said reasons, the impugned complaint inso far as the Petitioner is concerned is liable to be quashed andaccordingly, it is quashed and this Criminal Original Petition isallowed. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarSrcm https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1. The Sub Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Ambur.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras +1 cc to Mr.M.Premkumar, Advocate, SR.No.34907 Order inCrl.OP.No.14940/2006KGK {CO}TP/1.9.2009.