2015 (8) TMI 1520 - HC - Indian Laws

Harassement and Threats - received frivolous caveats repeatedly from the petitioner - amicable settlement reached but later denied - HELD THAT - The word 'offence' has been defined in Section 40 of the IPC and an offence under Section 203 has been classified with other classes of offences in Chapter XI of the IPC - the Explanation to Section 203 IPC covers the category of offences which, if committed at any place out of the country would be punishable by treating such offence to have been committed inside the country. Therefore, the categories of offences in the Explanation to Section 203 IPC by the use of the words offence includes creates an exclusive category of offences which will be punishable under Sections 201, 202 and 203 IPC by treating them to be punishable in India although they may have been committed at any place outside India. The only conclusion this Court can draw is that the Explanation has created a separate class of offences committed outside the country without impinging on the defining Section, being Section 40 IPC read with the parent Section 203 IPC. Therefore to exclude Section 354 IPC from the ambit of Section 203 IPC once the act is allegedly committed inside the country would be putting a premium to the Explanation overriding the intention of the controlling section - This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that the bitter personal relationship between the parties has time and again forced several courts to examine the crux of the dispute and sift the chaff from the grain. This Court is of the considered view that in order to do so both the Ld. Trial Court and the Revisionist Court can apply any tool legally under their command to arrive at a just finding. Such tools cannot exclude calling for a police report to assist the Court in its enquiry. When the Ld. Courts are sincerely ardent to direct the gathering of facts in this incessant battle between the parties, the search for the truth by the Ld. Courts cannot be interfered with at this stage by this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. - Finally, this Court finds substance in the legal position that since the petitioner has already entered plea in C-8509/2013, which is evident from the order of the Ld. 10th JM dated 6th June, 2014, this Court is required to refuse the prayer of the petitioner to quash the impugned proceedings. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amicable Settlement Attempts
2. Police Report Necessity
3. Issuance of Process under Sections 203/511 IPC
4. Mandatory Recording of FIR
5. Prima Facie Case and Issuance of Summons
6. Jurisdiction of Courts and Enquiry Procedures
7. Legal Interpretation of Section 203 IPC

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Amicable Settlement Attempts:
The judgment discusses multiple attempts by the courts to mediate an amicable settlement between the parties. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and the 8th Judicial Magistrate (JM) made efforts to resolve the dispute informally, but these attempts were unsuccessful due to the adamant nature of both parties. The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court noted a brief period where the parties appeared to have reconciled, but this proved to be temporary.

2. Police Report Necessity:
The 8th JM, considering the enmity between the parties, deemed it necessary to call for a police report under Section 91 CrPC. This was to ensure a careful approach in deciding the case due to the inimical relationship between the parties.

3. Issuance of Process under Sections 203/511 IPC:
The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings under Sections 203/511 IPC, which originated from a complaint alleging an attempt to snatch her gold chain and outrage her modesty. The 10th JM, after examining the complainant, found a prima facie case and directed the issuance of process, including summons.

4. Mandatory Recording of FIR:
The petitioner argued that the police had a mandatory obligation to record an FIR based on her complaint, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. The court, however, found that the absence of an FIR did not preclude the police from conducting a preliminary enquiry or reporting to the court.

5. Prima Facie Case and Issuance of Summons:
The petitioner contended that the issuance of process was mechanical and lacked proper examination of the allegations. The court referred to the judgments in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and S. Khushboo, emphasizing that issuance of process is a serious matter requiring careful scrutiny. The court upheld the issuance of process, finding that the 10th JM had sufficient grounds to proceed.

6. Jurisdiction of Courts and Enquiry Procedures:
The court addressed the petitioner's argument that the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to call for a police report under Sections 403 and 91 CrPC. The court concluded that the trial and revisionist courts could legally call for a police report to assist in their enquiry, aiming to discover the truth in the dispute.

7. Legal Interpretation of Section 203 IPC:
The court analyzed the applicability of Section 203 IPC, which deals with giving false information about an offence. The petitioner argued that Section 354 IPC (outraging the modesty of a woman) was not covered under Section 203 IPC. The court, however, found that the Explanation to Section 203 IPC created an exclusive category of offences, and excluding Section 354 IPC would be contrary to the legislative intent.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitioner's application to quash the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of discovering the truth and allowing the trial to proceed. The court found that the petitioner had already entered a plea, and interfering at this stage would be inappropriate. The judgment underscores the courts' efforts to mediate and resolve the dispute while ensuring a thorough legal process.