Point of Law: Criminal Revision – Scope of - Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. cannot substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the Courts below.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. This revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 14.02.2020, passed by the Additional Session Judge-03, North West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.66/2019 where by the Additional Session Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has affirmed the order dated 16.03.2019, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-02, North West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 16.03.2019 has acquitted the respondents No.2 herein for offences under Section 506 IPC arising out of NCR No.23/2016 dated 02.04.2016, registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh.

2. It is stated that the petitioner herein is a Senior Citizen and he has filed several FIRs against the respondent No.2 herein. The first FIR being FIR No.755/2000, was registered by the petitioner against the respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 420/120B IPC. It is stated that pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the parties, the said FIR was quashed. It is stated that after the quashing of the aforesaid FIR, the respondent No.2 failed to pay the settlement amount to the petitioner herein and instead starting threatening the petitioner. It is stated that on 01.06.2015, the petitioner filed an FIR against the respondent No.2 herein, being FIR No.693/2015 dated 01.06.2015, registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, for offences under Sections 307/341/506/34 IPC alleging that the respondent No.2 is threatening the petitioner with dire consequences. It is stated that on 02.04.2016, at about 7:15 P.M., when the petitioner was going to the Police Station Shalimar Bagh to enquire about the status of FIR No. 693/2015, the respondent No. 2 met the petitioner outside the Police Station and threatened him with dire consequences and asked him to take back the case. On the complaint of the petitioner NCR No.23/2016 dated 02.04.2016, was registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh for offence under Section 506 IPC. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. On being summoned, the accused entered appearance, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Proceedings were initiated against the accused. In order to prove the guilt, prosecution examined 5 witnesses.

i. PW-l (Ajay Pal Singh) is the complainant.

ii. PW-2 is Inspector Surender who was examined to prove the DD entry being DD No.61B.

iii. PW-3 is SI Suresh Pal who deposed that on receiving the DD No.41A he reached the place of the incident and the instant NCR was lodged.

4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that there are glaring contractions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He further held that mere utterance of words cannot constitute an offence under Section 506 IPC unless the accused/respondent No.2 herein, at the time when the words were uttered, had the means to carry out that threat into action. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate further held that the words uttered should cause an alarm to the complainant and the testimony of PW-1 does not reveal that he was alarmed by the words uttered or the threat extended by the respondent No.2 herein. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, therefore, held that even if the allegations levelled by the petitioner herein are taken at face value, then also the case against the respondent No.2 herein for commission of offence under Section 506 IPC is not made out. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 06.03.2019 acquitted the accused.

5. The matter was taken up in appeal by the petitioner herein. The learned Additional Session Judge perused the record and found that the order of acquittal does not require any interference. The learned Additional Session Judge observed that the complainant did not depose with precision as to how the respondent No.2 threatened him. The learned Additional Session Judge held that the complainant disclosed the exact words used by the respondent No.2 only at the time of cross-examinati