Point of Law: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR registered at Dholai Marine Police Station, District Navsari being C.R. No. II-1 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the ICP' for short).

2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present application are as under:

2.1. The complainant namely Promiskumar Somabhai Tandel has filed complaint on 11.02.2017 inter alia alleging that on 13.02.2012, Collector, Navsari allotted 5 hectors of land being plot No. 56 falling in Block No. 903 of Village Mendhar to the complainant for the purpose of Shrimp Farming pursuant to the application made by the complainant in the year 2009. On 04.02.2017, at around 03:45 p.m., in the evening, the complainant was in the process of constructing the Shrimp Farm and the complainant was standing there at that time, Krishnabhai Chhaganbhai Tandel and one Kayo, who is brother of Ex-Sarpanch of Dholai Village, came to him and told him that he should not construct the shrimp farm nor do any business and asked him to leave from there failing which they threatened to kill him and by using abusive language and thereafter, he left from there. On 06.02.2017, accused Krishnabhai once again threatened the complainant on his mobile phone and thereafter, the complainant was constrained to lodge an F.I.R.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a trained aqua culturist and is into the business of shrimp farming since last 25 years. The complainant and the applicant knowing each other as they are hailing from the same village, by way of mutual understanding that the applicant would cultivate shrimps by putting in labour, expertise and finance and the proceeds of the business would be shared amongst the applicant and the complainant, an application was made by the complainant in the year 2007 to the Collector, requesting for allotment of land for shrimp farming in Brackish water. Pursuant to which, the Collector, Navsari vide order dated 13.02.2012 allotted 5 hectors of land in the name of the complainant for shrimp farming.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda appearing for the applicant has submitted that after the order of allotment was made by the Collector, the complainant in the end of year 2012 or the beginning of 2013, went to Abu Dhabi (UAE) for work and remained in Abu Dhabi till 2015. He has submitted that on the other hand, and in the meantime, the applicant carried out all the formalities in the name of the complainant and obtained all the necessary and requisite permissions from the Gram Panchayat and also from the adjacent Panchayat which was also objecting the activity of shrimp farming and thereafter, each and every clearance was obtained by the applicant and the applicant after obtaining the necessary sanction started developing the infrastructure. He has also submitted that while the applicant was in the process of developing the shrimp farm, the complainant also returned from Abu Dhabi and after he returned from Abu Dhabi, he had second thoughts and started raising objections against the development of shrimp farm and its cultivation. He has further submitted that the complainant made an application on 26.10.2015 to the Collector, Navsari alleging that the applicant was not handing over the original documents which the complainant had handed over to the applicant and thereafter, the Collector, Navsari in turn called upon the applicant and the complainant to remain present on 18.11.2015 vide notice dated 02.11.2015 so as to hear both the parties and thereafter, pass necessary order.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda for the applicant has submitted that in order to see that the construction activity at the farm got stopped with an ulterior intention, the impugned F.I.R. has been filed. He has also submitted that the allegations levelled in the complaint neither disclose