The requirement of proving intention to cause alarm or compel action for successful conviction under Section 506 IPC.

ORDER :

1. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the Proceedings in C.C. No. 264 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, wherein the petitioner is the sole accused. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the Police filed a Charge Sheet against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. S. Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Mr. Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.

3. The 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint as per the contents of which he is having Savings and Current Account in State Bank of India, Dharmajigudem ADB Branch. On 25.09.2018 at about 11.30 a.m. he went to the Bank for the purpose of depositing an amount of Rs.20,000/- and while so, one person by name P. Narasimhulu, who is known to him asked him to sign as a witness in the Withdrawal Form. Since the said Narasimhulu is an illiterate, the 2nd respondent signed on the Withdrawal Form, wrote his Account Number and Mobile Number. Thereafter, the Cashier of the Bank i.e. the petitioner herein asked him to write his full address on the said Withdrawal Form, then the 2nd respondent stated that he is having Savings and Current Account in the Bank and that with the said Account Number, they can get his full details. For that, the petitioner spoke in a rude manner stating that “how can we know if you are a thief, I will put you in Jail” and insulted the 2nd respondent and that when he asked the petitioner “why would you make me put in Jail” then the petitioner shouted in the public in a loud voice stating that “I will see how will you enter the bank, till I am here and I will see your end and make you go to Jail.” The complaint was registered vide F.I.R. No. 197 of 2018 and the cognizance of the same was taken by the Learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 264 of 2019.

4. The learned counsel submits that the statements/averments in the said complaint are partially correct and in fact, the petitioner herein requested the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to fill the required/mandatory details without leaving blanks, then the 2nd respondent started shouting on the petitioner and threatened him with dire consequences, created nuisance, which resulted in hampering of Customer Service for more than an hour and in those circumstances, the petitioner informed the Police, who immediately reached the Bank and after making the enquiries advised the petitioner to give complaint in writing and accordingly a complaint was lodged by the petitioner against the de facto complainant on 25.09.2018. But, surprisingly, the Police have registered the petitioner’s complaint vide F.I.R. No. 198/2018 after registering the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein vide F.I.R. No. 197/2018. He submits that in so far as the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein, the Police have filed a separate Charge Sheet against the 2nd respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC and the matter is pending consideration before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. In so far as the Charge Sheet filed against the petitioner is concerned, which was taken on file vide C.C. No. 264/2019, he submits that no ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC are present and that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are taken to be true, they will not attract the offence alleged against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the Learned Counsel submits that the continuation of Proceedings which are sought to be quashed is a futile exercise and amounts to abuse of process of Law. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 423 and Parmin