B. Nirmala vs State Of Telangana

This petition is filed by the petitioners - A1 and A2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding against them in CC No.1262 of 2012 pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

The respondent No.2 - de facto complainant lodged a report before the Marredpally Police, Secunderabad on 09.05.2013 at 6.00 PM stating that she attended the Family Court, Secunderabad with regard to the divorce case and custody of her son's case, pending before the said Court, and the Judge, on hearing both the sides, adjourned the matter to 06.06.2013. When she came outside the Court, the Juniors of her husband, by name, Dhananjay and Nirmala, smiling teasingly on her face asked her 'how it was'. She came to know that Nirmala was having affair with her husband. They wanted her to give divorce to her husband and threatened her to give divorce. Her husband, T. Surya Satish, was a Lawyer and Government Pleader in the High Court. His uncle was Nizamabad M.P. (Madhu Yashki). They were having lot of influence and pressurizing her to give divorce and threatened to see her end. As the offence under Section 506 IPC was non-cognizable in nature, the Investigating Officer made a GD entry and sought permission of the Court for investigation and after obtaining permission from the Court on 07.09.2013, registered the same as FIR No.262 of 2013 under Section 506 IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no representation for the respondent No.2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were practising Advocates, they were not only juniors of Sri T. Surya Satish, but also Advocates on record for him in OP No.220 of 2012 pending on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad. The Marredpally Police ought to have verified the Court record in OP No.220 of 2012 to know the truth of the contents of the complaint made by the respondent No.2. The Court allowed I.A No.768 of 2012 in OP No.220 of 2012 seeking amendment of the Divorce Petition. Aggrieved by the said order and to take revenge on the Counsel on record, the respondent No.2 had foisted the false and frivolous complaint. The Marredpally Police had not properly investigated into the complaint. The same was evident from the charge sheet as they mentioned in it that their discreet enquiries in the vicinity proved that no such incident took place in the Court premises on 09.05.2013. The contents of the complaint would show that the petitioners - A1 and A2 had threatened and pressurized the respondent No.2 to give divorce, but neither the place nor the time of such threat or the pressure was mentioned in the complaint. The compliant would disclose that after hearing both sides the matter was adjourned to 06.06.2013. In such event, when the matter was adjourned, there was no necessity for any threat or pressure as alleged. Earlier also, the respondent No.2 had filed a similar complaint with the Police, Alwal on 16.05.2013 against the petitioners herein, and the  Police, Alwal had registered the same as Crime No.318 of 2013 and the Police had filed a final report in the said FIR on 30.08.2013 as 'Lack of Evidence.' The respondent No.2 was trying to implicate the petitioners falsely in various cases either due to self enmity or due to instigation of some others. The respondent No. 2 had also filed another complaint vide Crime No.353 of 2014 on 19.04.2014 with the Police Alwal against another Junior of T. Surya Satish making allegations of Kidnap. The Police, after investigation, filed final report in the said FIR stating that it was a 'Mistake of Fact.'

Learned counsel further submitted that the contents of the compliant would disclose that the respondent No.2 was alone present on 09.05.2013, whereas the charge sheet would disclose her father as an eye witness to the incident. The Police, Marredpally and the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had even failed to notice that the petitioners - A1 and A2 were none other than the Counsel on record for the opponent of the respondent No.2 in OP No.220 of 2012. The complaint, charge sheet and CC No.1262 of 2014 were registered in utter violation of the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and prayed to quash the proceedings in CC No.1262 of 2014 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the petitioners herein.

Learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on merits.

Perused the record. The respondent No.2 alleged in her report that the petitioners were teasingly smiled on her face while she was coming out of the Court saying that 'how was it". Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. It is defined in Section 503 IPC as under:

"503. Criminal Intimidation.- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka 2015 (7) SCC 423 interpreted the above section by holding that:

"There must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do."

It was observed that:

"Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. Material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant."

Smiling teasingly would not amount to threatening or causing alarm to a person. The record would also disclose that the Family Court, Secunderabad, allowed the petition filed by the husband of the respondent No.2 i.e. Sri T. Surya Satish, in I.A. No.768 of 2012 in O.P. No.220 of 2012 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment on 09.05.2013 i.e. on the date of the alleged incident. Thus, the respondent No.2 provoked by the said order, might have lodged the complaint against the petitioners herein. A perusal of the complaint copy in FIR No.318 of 2013 of Alwal Police Station, would disclose that the petitioner also lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein on 16.05.2013 for the offence under Section 506 IPC. They would only disclose the insecurity faced by her during the pendency of the proceedings filed by her husband for divorce and custody of the child before the Family Court due to which she tried to foist cases against the counsel on record representing her husband in the matter before the Family Court.

The Police also mentioned in the charge sheet that when the Sub Inspector visited the scene of offence, along with the respondent No.2 and caused discreet enquiries in the vicinity, nobody came forward to disclose about the incident. If any such threat had taken place in the Court premises, there would be a chance of witnessing it by some or the other person. But, when nobody came forward to speak about the alleged incident and when the complaint would not disclose the presence of the father of the respondent No.2 at the time of incident, police citing the father of the respondent No.2 as an eye witness to the incident and when the complaint did not disclose any ingredients of criminal intimidation against the petitioners herein under section 506 IPC, continuation of the proceedings against the practising Advocates, who were the counsel on record for the husband of the respondent No.2 in the matter before the Family Court, Secunderabad, who were representing him is considered as an abuse of process of law and hence, liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in CC No.1262 of 2014, pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the petitioners herein.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.