Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 851 - HC - Indian LawsOffence under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code - Held that - A bare perusal of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant, but with a view to deterring him from interfering with the work of construction of the wall, which was undertaken by the accusedapplicant, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. In the entire FIR, there is no whisper of any allegation that the threats which were administered actually caused any alarm to the first informant and he felt actually threatened. In view thereof even none of the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code are spelt out. Thus not convinced with the case putforward by the first informant so as to permit the police to continue with the investigation. The agreement provided for mutual obligations and it appears that on account of the disputes, the parties have not been able to strictly adhere to their respective obligations. The matter is at large before the Civil Court. The civil liability will be determined by the Civil Court on the basis of the evidence, that may be led by the parties. As noted above, the first informant has not initiated any civil proceeding. He has not even filed a counter claim in the civil suit filed by the accused persons. So far as the applicant of the connected application is concerned, she is the wife of the Chairman and Managing Director of the company. Let me assume for the moment that a, prima facie, case is made out of criminal breach of trust against the company and the other accused. I am of the view that the wife should not be held responsible in any manner by fastening vicarious liability. Even otherwise, no vicarious liability can be fastened on any person for an offence under the Indian Penal Code. In the result, both the writ applications succeed and are hereby allowed. The First Information Report being C.R. No.I2 of 2015 lodged at the Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, District Gandhinagar is hereby quashed. All the consequential proceedings pursuant thereto stand terminated. Rule is made absolute.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of any offence. 2. Whether the dispute between the parties is civil in nature or involves criminal liability. 3. Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of any offence: The FIR alleges that the accused committed offences under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B read with section 114 of the IPC. The first informant claims that the accused misappropriated 105.853 kg of gold bars deposited in fiduciary capacity and failed to return them despite repeated demands. The accused is also alleged to have presented fabricated and forged documents. However, the court found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence. There is no document on record that could be termed as a false document within the meaning of section 464 of the IPC. The court also noted that mere incorrect information or a false recital in a document does not amount to forgery. Additionally, the court observed that the allegations do not constitute the offence of cheating as there is no evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. 2. Whether the dispute between the parties is civil in nature or involves criminal liability: The court noted that the dispute between the parties is primarily a civil dispute involving the breach of a business agreement. The first informant admitted that he stopped paying the sale proceeds to the accused company from March 2013 onwards, as authorized by the agreement. The court emphasized that the case is predominantly a civil wrong and the necessary ingredients to constitute a criminal offence are lacking. The court cited several judgments to support its conclusion that mere breach of contract does not give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. The court also highlighted that criminal proceedings are not a shortcut for other remedies available in law. 3. Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the facts and circumstances of the case: The court concluded that the FIR should be quashed as it does not disclose the commission of any offence. The court observed that the first informant has not initiated any civil proceedings to recover the amount due and payable, which further indicates that the dispute is civil in nature. The court also noted that the first informant's inconsistent stance in the civil suit and the FIR assumes significance. The court emphasized that the criminal machinery should not be used for any oblique purpose and that the criminal proceedings initiated by the first informant appear to be an attempt to prejudice the trial of the civil suit and to use them as a lever to coerce the accused into a compromise. Conclusion: The court allowed both the writ applications and quashed the FIR being C.R. No.I-2 of 2015 lodged at the Gandhinagar Zone Police Station. The court directed that the civil proceedings should proceed expeditiously and be decided without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.
|