IMPORTANT POINT
Allegations must disclose an offence; mere threats without intent to cause alarm do not meet the threshold for criminal intimidation under IPC.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.404 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur for the offence punishable under Section 507 of Indian Penal Code,1860[for short ‘IPC’].

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

a. Respondent No.2/Complainant, being a reporter of Sakshi News Paper, published a news item as “Atavi Bhoomula Aakramana” and contacted the Petitioner/Accused over phone for clarification about the said news item. On that, Petitioner/Accused, who was the-then Forest Range Officer revolted against the Complainant by abusing him as “Useless Fellow” and “Thikkanakodaka” and also threatened him with dire consequences.

b. As such, the Complainant lodged a complaint which was registered as a case in Crime No.154 of 2019 for the offence under Section 507 IPC read with 155(3) Cr.P.C.

c. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the Petitioner and the same was numbered as C.C.No.404 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur for the offence under Section 507 IPC. The same is sought to be quashed.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition on the following grounds:

a. In February, 2019 one Prakash, reporter of Sakshi Telugu Daily News Paper of Punganur approached the Petitioner demanding Rs.10,000/- in their routine course, for which the Petitioner refused. The said reporter bore grudge against the Petitioner and instigated the Complainant and made him to publish false news item under the caption “Atavi Bhoomula Aakramana”, without verifying the facts and taking clarification from the Petitioner, who is responsible for Punganur Forest Range.

b. After publishing the news item, the complainant telephoned the Petitioner and gave warning for not fulfilling the demand made by his colleague Mr.Prakash. Though the Petitioner clarified that no forest land was encroached, instead of rectifying the mistake, concocted a false story and filed a complaint against the Petitioner.

c. The ingredients of Section 507 IPC were not attracted against the Petitioner.

d. The alleged offence was said to have been committed on 24.08.2019 and the FIR was registered on 03.09.2019 due to the pressure of the Reporters. Therefore, continuation of the case against the Petitioner is nothing but harassing the Petitioner, who is a Public Servant. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against him.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1. Though notice was sent to Respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that one Prakash, a Sakshi News Paper reporter approached the Petitioner demanding Rs.10,000/- for which he refused. Then, the said reporter instigated the complainant and made him to publish a false news item to the effect that an extent of Ac.20.00 cents of forest land was encroached by Telugu Desam Party leaders. Without verifying the facts, the news item was published which is detrimental to the reputation of the Department. The present case was lodged against the Petitioner based on the false allegations. No prima facie allegations which would attract the alleged offence, were made out against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner, which attract the offence sunder Section 507 IPC. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner at this stage.

Point for determination

7. Now the point