9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1631 - SC - Indian LawsRejection of Discharge application - Section 239 read with Section 245 Cr.P.C. - whether in the present case, appellant was entitled to be discharged from the offence under Sections 504 and 506 and whether Courts below committed error in rejecting the discharge application? HELD THAT - From the facts, it is clear that appellant s role was only of a surveyor appointed by insurance company to survey and submit report on the fire insurance claim alleged by the complainant with regard to incident dated 18.12.2010, which took place in his factory premises at Kosikala, District Mathura - While considering the discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not to hold the mini trial by marshalling the evidence. The ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 are not made out from the complaint filed by the complainant. When the complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which has been treated as a complaint case, does not contain ingredients of Sections 504 and 506, we are of the view that Courts below committed error in rejecting the application of discharge filed by the appellant. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that appellant was entitled to be discharged for the offence under Sections 504 and 506. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was entitled to be discharged from the offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. 2. Whether the Courts below committed an error in rejecting the discharge application. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Discharge from Offence Under Sections 504 and 506 IPC: The appellant, a surveyor appointed by an insurance company, was accused of threatening and abusing the complainant. The case revolves around the appellant's role in surveying an insurance claim and the subsequent allegations made by the complainant. The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations met the necessary legal criteria for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. Relevant Facts: - The appellant, a director of a surveying company, conducted a survey of the complainant's fire insurance claim. - The final survey report, submitted on 23.09.2011, recommended repudiation of the claim due to misrepresentation and false declarations by the complainant. - The complainant alleged that the appellant, along with others, threatened and abused him on 02.10.2011. Legal Analysis: - Section 504 IPC: The Court highlighted that for an offence under Section 504 IPC, there must be an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to break public peace or commit any other offence. The Court found that mere allegations of abuse without sufficient provocation do not satisfy these criteria. - Section 506 IPC: For an offence under Section 506 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused threatened the complainant with intent to cause alarm. The Court noted that the allegations in the complaint did not demonstrate the necessary intent to cause alarm or any threat of injury. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the allegations did not meet the legal requirements for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The appellant's actions, as described, did not constitute intentional insult or criminal intimidation as defined under the respective sections. 2. Error in Rejecting the Discharge Application: The Supreme Court evaluated whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the appellant's discharge application. Relevant Facts: - The appellant's discharge application was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the High Court. - The appellant argued that the complaint was filed to harass him due to his adverse survey report. Legal Analysis: - The Court referred to the principles for considering discharge applications, emphasizing that the judge must exercise judicial mind to determine if a prima facie case exists. - The Court noted that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellant. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found that the lower courts failed to properly assess whether the allegations constituted a prima facie case under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The rejection of the discharge application was deemed erroneous. Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment dated 06.02.2017 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated 29.11.2016. The appellant was discharged from the offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.
|
