S. Selva Kumar vs State and Others

M.M. Sundresh, J—This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for records relating to the case in C.C. No. 193 of 2014 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Ramanathapuram in Crime No. 2 of 2014 on the file of the First Respondent i.e., the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District and quash all the further proceedings as against the Petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the First Respondent.

The Petitioner herein is the sole Accused in Crime No. 2 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) & 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Enforcement Act, 1998 [as amended by 2002 Act]. After investigation was completed, the case has been taken on file in C.C. No. 193 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ramanathapuram.

The allegation against the Petitioner is that he has threatened the de facto Complainant with dire consequences in view of her action in informing others about the Petitioner''s relationship with another girl.

The Complaint proceeds to state that while the de facto Complainant was standing in the Bus Stand, the Petitioner came to the said place and used filthy language, apart from threatening by saying that he would finish her life.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a perusal of the Complaint would show that it is totally vague in nature. It is nowhere stated the said nature of words said to have been used by the Petitioner. The offences under Sections 294(b) & 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code r/w under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Enforcement Act, 1998 [as amended by 2002 Act], have not been made out. Even assuming the Petitioner has said something out of rage; it cannot be termed as a threat in the absence of any relevant materials. Even according to the de facto Complainant, the Petitioner did not come with any arms, he did not manhandle her. On the contrary, the de facto Complainant said to have been mentally disturbed by the oral outburst of the Petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:

"(i) Srinivasan v. State, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, 2009 (4) MLJ (Crl) 1118;

(ii) Rajan, Sekar, Mohan and Rajan Vs. State, (2008) CriLJ 3693 ;

(iii) Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., A.R. Santhanakrishnan, Mrs. Radhika Santhanakrishnan and Chandrasekaran Vs. Inspector of Police, Team-IV, Central Crime Branch and M. Viswanathan, (2007) 135 CompCas 292 : (2006) 2 CTC 642 : (2006) 1 LW(Cri) 307 ; and

(iv) Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President, All India Janatha Party, No. 1, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Santhome, Madras - 600 004. Vs. C. Pushparaj, Deputy Secretary AIADMK Party, (1998) 1 CTC 300 ."

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for Respondent No. 1 submitted that after a thorough investigation, the case has been registered. The version of de facto Complainant is supported by other Witnesses. One of the Witnesses has spoken to about the words said to have been used by the Petitioner. Therefore, no interference required.

Despite Notice has been served, none appears for Respondent No. 2. The name noted in the cause-list is also recorded.

As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that it is the specific case of the de facto Complainant that filthy language was used by the Petitioner. Beyond this, she has not stated anything. She has not stated that other Witnesses are eyewitnesses. It has been merely stated that the said occurrence is known to others, who is said to have been present in the place of occurrence. Even anyone of the Witnesses have not spoken to about the specific words used by the Petitioner. Thus, the Complaint is totally vague, bereft of any materials, particular attracting the provisions of Section 294(b). It is the further case of the de facto Complainant that the Petitioner only made a mere oral threat. Thus, he has not used any weapon or arm. Though one of the Witnesses have stated that the Petitioner has pushed the de facto Complainant, there is no corroborative evidence to prove the same and that it is not even supported by the de facto Complainant.

Coming to Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Enforcement Act, 1998 [as amended by 2002 Act]; this Court is of the view that there is no sufficient material to charge the Petitioner under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Enforcement Act, 1998 [as amended by 2002 Act]. Thus, in the absence of any attracting material, the said offence is also made out.

Considering the scope of Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code in Srinivasan v. State by Sub-Inspector of Police, 2009 (4) MLJ (Crl) 1118, in Paragraph No. 11, this Court has held in the following manner:

"11. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 506, of IPC, the intention of the Accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. Mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm would not suffice. To constitute an offence under Section 506 of IPC it must be shown that the person charged actually threatened another with injury to his person, reputation or property with an intention to cause alarm."

In Rajan, Sekar, Mohan and Rajan Vs. State, (2008) CriLJ 3693 , after taking note of the decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, this Court has held in the following manner:

"10...... In a similar case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the proceedings in respect of the offence under Section 506(ii), I.P.C., in a case in Usha Bala v. State of Punjab (P & H), 2002 (2) C.C. Cases 320 (P & H), that:

"Empty threats does not prima facie mean that the case under Section 506, I.P.C. 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 under Section 406/498-A, I.P.C. of Police Station, Sadar, Patiala is quashed qua the Petitioner only.

"It is seen even in the instant case, except a vague and bald allegation of Criminal intimidation, the de facto 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. "

In Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., A.R. Santhanakrishnan, Mrs. Radhika Santhanakrishnan and Chandrasekaran Vs. Inspector of Police, Team-IV, Central Crime Branch and M. Viswanathan, (2007) 135 CompCas 292 : (2006) 2 CTC 642 : (2006) 1 LW(Cri) 307 , this Court, while dealing with the effect of a bald allegation, it has been held as follows:

"19.........Very bald allegation has been made that on enquiry the Accused 1 to 3 threatened to kill him. Such a stock version cannot be given much credence at all."

Similar views were also expressed by this Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President, All India Janatha Party, No. 1, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Santhome, Madras - 600 004. Vs. C. Pushparaj, Deputy Secretary AIADMK Party, (1998) 1 CTC 300 , wherein it has been held that a mere outburst is not sufficient to bring a case within the mischief of Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the above reports, this Court is inclined to set aside the proceedings in question and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 193 of 2014 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Ramanathapuram in Crime No. 2 of 2014 on the file of the First Respondent i.e., the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District stands quashed.