Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 964
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT PAUL, J.
Sugandha Dasgupta – Appellant
Versus
Tapan Pal – Respondent
CRR 3608 of 2019
Decided on : 22-06-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya, Ms. Sudipa Sengupta.
For the Respondent: Mr. Supratik Syamal, Ms. Mitali Mondal.
Transfer of an employee from one location to another, even if the employee is unwell, does not amount to criminal intimidation or intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace, unless there is evidence of a specific intent to cause harm or insult.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION - SECTIONS 503/504 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE - TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEE - NO INTENT TO INTIMIDATE OR INSULT - OFFICIAL DUTY - SUMMARY DISMISSAL - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - MAIN LEGAL POINT : Transfer of an employee from one location to another, even if the employee is unwell, does not amount to criminal intimidation or intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace, unless there is evidence of a specific intent to cause harm or insult.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an HR manager, was accused of criminal intimidation and intentional insult under Sections 503 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code by the opposite party, an employee who was transferred from Kolkata to Noida. The opposite party alleged that the petitioner had insulted him by not allowing him to enter the Kolkata office after he had been relieved from his duties there and that she had threatened him with disciplinary action if he did not join the Noida office.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner as none of the ingredients required to constitute the said offences were present against her. The court held that the petitioner's conduct was in due course of her official duty and that she had not endangered, intimidated, or threatened the opposite party with any harm to compel him to do any unlawful act, nor did she insult him in any manner whatsoever.
Issues: Whether the transfer of an employee from one location to another, even if the employee is unwell, amounts to criminal intimidation or intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 503 are that the accused intentionally insulted someone, thereby intended to give him provocation, and knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause that person to commit a breach of the peace or to commit any other offence. The court found that none of these ingredients were present in the instant case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being Complaint Case No. 5324/2019 under Sections 503/504 of Indian Penal Code 1860, presently pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is a bona fide employee, working in the capacity of Senior Employee, HR Manager in GE Power India Limited.
3. The genesis of the instant case dates back to 04.11.2019, when the opposite party filed a petition of complaint before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas being Complaint Case No. 5324/2019, alleging commission of offences under Sections 503/504 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
The allegations in the said petition of complaint are in brief to the effect that the opposite party worked as Commercial Proposals Analyst under GE Power India Limited, having its office at Millennium City, IT Park, Tower – IOI, 11th floor, DN – 62, Section V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700091 and had been in service for 28 years. On 13.09.1995 at 4.30 pm, while travelling on duty for material inspection from Maheshtala to Howrah in a State bus, the opposite party no. 2 met with an accident near Howrah Bankim Setu and was immediately shifted to Howrah Orthopedic Hospital, then was transferred to Infirmy Nursing Home at Kolkata. The opposite party no.2 was further admitted and treated at AMRI Hospital, Salt Lake due to a brain stroke on 11.05.2014. The condition of the opposite party no.2 deteriorated day by day and he was advised not to work for more than 3 to 4 hours a day by the doctors. The opposite party no. 2 informed the said situation along with supporting medical documents to the concerned officer of his company. In spite of knowledge of the opposite party’s condition, the petitioner sent a transfer letter dated 05.12.2018, thereby transferring the opposite party no. 2 from Kolkata to Noida with effect from 01.02.2019. The petitioner intentionally and forcefully issued a second notice dated 14.01.2019 and 21.01.2019, wherein the petitioner asked the opposite party no. 2 about reporting date and status. The opposite party received a letter dated 01.04.2019 mentioning therein “you stand relieved from Kolkata office effective from 09.04.2019 (close of business hour)” and by a further threatening letter the petitioner extended the reporting date to 18.04.2019 and the same was further extended till 12.06.2019. On 22.08.2019 the petitioner sent a show cause notice cum charge sheet and directed the opposite party no. 2 to submit within 3 days as to why no disciplinary actions will be initiated against him. The opposite party no. 2 sent his medical papers citing his health conditions by speed post. The petitioner did not consider the medical papers sent by the opposite party and stated them to be flimsy. The opposite party then sent a reply to the letter dated 22.08.2019 through his advocate vide letter dated 27.08.2019. The petitioner issued a second show cause on 10.09.2019 asking explanation from the opposite party in spite of knowing his health conditions and his inability to join the Noida Office, thus exerting mental pressure and causing mental agony upon the opposite party. The opposite party had been suffering mental agony and harassment due to the unlawful activity of the petitioner. The opposite party had on a previous occasion on 26.04.2019 lodged a complaint with Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate on being insulted by a security guard at the time of entering office at Millennium city IT Park. Upon police personnel appearing at the spot, they requested the petitioner to allow the opposite party to enter the office, but the petitioner did not allow him and as a result he returned back home. On 02.05.2019 also, the same incident was repeated and the security guards on duty did not allow the opposite party to enter the office. The opposite p
