The intention to cause alarm is crucial in determining criminal intimidation, and mere expression of words, even if abusive or threatening, without the intention to cause alarm, would not constitute the offense.

1. Puran Chauhan/Respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC against the petitioner, his company and three other accused. After examining Puran Chauhan/complainant, learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 15th January, 2010 though did not summon the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but summoned him alone for offence punishable under Section 506 Part-II IPC. Hence the present petition.

2. Allegations of Puran Chauhan in the complaint were in nutshell that he was a stuntman in the film industry and in March, 2007, the petitioner along with Harish Shetty, Huzefia Lakadwala and Joy Augustine approached him at his residence with the proposal and request to assist them in making a film based on the serial bomb blast that occurred in the year 2006 in Mumbai. Puran Chauhan refused to assist as an Assistant Director without any remuneration. On 5th April, 2007 he was offered Rs. 50 lakhs in consideration for the work i.e. for the waiver by the Ministry of Railways for using the railway site and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- per day was offered for working as Assistant Director. An offer for being cast as an actor in another film was also given to Puran Chauhan. Believing their representation, Puran Chauhan agreed to act as an Assistant Director and stuntman. Due to his hard labour and work, he obtained the necessary permission and waiver from the Railway Department for using their sites for shooting in the film. After getting the job done when Puran Chauhan asked for release of Rs. 25 lakhs, he was asked to come with documents at the Mumbai office. On reaching Mumbai office, he was asked to sign blank papers and on protest he was gheraoed and compelled to sign on blank papers. In this regard the Puran Chauhan made a complaint to the Mumbai police however, he was advised to go back to Delhi. After reaching Delhi, Puran Chauhan made a phone call to the petitioner who spoke in a very filthy and abusive language and threatened him with dire consequences. It is stated that since the threats were received by Puran Chauhan from the petitioner while speaking to him on the phone which Puran Chauhan received in Delhi, thus the court at Delhi had jurisdiction to try the complaint.

3. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that it could not be said that intention of the accused persons, right from the very beginning was to deprive the complainant of the legitimate fruits of his labour, therefore, did not take cognizance for other offences except Section 506 Part-II IPC. The allegations on the basis of which the petitioner has been summoned by the learned Trial Court are that during the course of conversation on phone, the petitioner abused Puran Chauhan by saying to him ‘tu phone karke teri kabr khod raha hai aur kuch nahi kar raha hai. Dekh main kya karta hoon. Tu dekh bahan chod jo baat karna hai Joy se baat karo, mere se kabhi baat mat karna, maine aapse kabhi baat nahi kiya’.

4. Thus the short issue in the present petition is whether on the allegations as mentioned in the complaint and as deposed to by Puran Chauhan, whether ingredients of offence punishable under Section 506 Part-II IPC are prima facie made out warranting summoning of the petitioner as has been done by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 15th January, 2010.

5. Though case of the petitioner is that the complaint filed by Puran Chauhan was as a counter blast to their complaints of extortion however, in view of the legal position that at this stage, the Court cannot go into the defence of the petitioner learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even on the face value the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the ingredients of Section 506 IPC for the reason that not only should the words be with intention to cause an alarm to a person threatened but the person should be threatened as well. Thus if it is not prove