9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1361 - SC - Indian LawsInterference with lawful possession and ownership of the land in question - offence of dacoity punishable Under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code - even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed to be true whether the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable Under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code are disclosed? - criminal intimidation punishable Under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code - FIR was lodged in the year 2022 for the alleged offence of the year 2021 and more particularly without furnishing any details as regards the date and time of the alleged incident - case on hand falls within any one of the parameters laid down by this Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS BHAJAN LAL 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT for the purposes of quashing the criminal case or not? HELD THAT - Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence - In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504 Indian Penal Code the court has to find out what in the ordinary circumstances would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. Mere abuse discourtesy rudeness or insolence may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 Indian Penal Code if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the Accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace - 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 the Accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable Under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not Under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable Under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the Accused persons - The Court while exercising its jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. The requirement and need to balance the law enforcement power and protection of citizens from injustice and harassment must be maintained. It goes without saying that the State owes a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished but at the same time it also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed. The continuation of the criminal case arising from the FIR No. 224 of 2022 registered at Mirzapur Police Station Saharanpur will be nothing but abuse of the process of the law. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we are inclined to accept the case put up on behalf of the Appellants herein - the impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plain reading of the FIR discloses commission of the offence of dacoity punishable Under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether any case of criminal intimidation punishable Under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 3. Whether the allegations levelled in the FIR inspire any confidence considering the fact that the FIR was lodged in the year 2022 for the alleged offence of the year 2021 and more particularly, without furnishing any details as regards the date and time of the alleged incident. 4. Whether the case on hand falls within any one of the parameters laid down by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604, for the purposes of quashing the criminal case. Summary: 1. Offence of Dacoity: The Court analyzed the definition and ingredients of dacoity under Sections 390 and 391 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It concluded that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity are disclosed. The Court noted that the first informant's case appears fabricated, particularly the claim of carrying Rs. 2 Lakh in his pocket without a plausible explanation. The Court emphasized that the provisions of a criminal statute must be construed strictly and concluded that Section 395 IPC is not applicable in this case. 2. Criminal Intimidation: The Court examined Sections 503, 504, and 506 IPC, which relate to criminal intimidation, insult, and annoyance. It found that a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC may be disclosed but not under Section 504 IPC. The Court noted that the FIR did not specify the abusive words alleged to have been used, making it difficult to determine whether the ingredient of intentional insult was present. 3. Delay in Lodging the FIR: The Court observed that the FIR was lodged more than a year after the alleged incident without any details of the date and time of the incident or a plausible explanation for the delay. It noted that delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with other attending circumstances rendering the case improbable, could be a ground for quashing the FIR. The Court found the allegations too vague and general and questioned how the State would prove its case without specific details and material evidence. 4. Parameters for Quashing FIR: The Court referred to the parameters laid down in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing an FIR. It concluded that the present case falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5, and 7, which include situations where the allegations do not constitute any offence, are inherently improbable, or are manifestly attended with mala fide intent. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the continuation of the criminal case arising from FIR No. 224 of 2022 would be an abuse of the process of law. It allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR. The Court emphasized that its observations are relevant only for the purpose of the FIR in question and the consequential criminal proceedings, and should not affect any pending criminal prosecutions or other proceedings.
|
