IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Nyamar Rike S/o Late Jumnya Rike – Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. and Another – Respondents
Crl. Pet. No. 43 of 2020
Decided On : 27-05-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 447, 448, 506, 503, 504 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482, 161 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1)(B)/27 – Quashing the order – Framed Charge – Instant application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed for setting aside and quashing order whereby charge was framed under Section 506 (Part-II) of Indian Penal Code against Petitioner herein in connection with P.S. Case registered under Sections 447/448/506 of Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case – Held, Relevant portion of said statement i.e. “And while leaving the house, he threatened to kill me some day and used all sorts of vulgar words – Now, if this Court takes into consideration charge sheet, it would be apparent that only allegation in so far as Sections 503 and 506 of IPC is that Petitioner while leaving party threatened Respondent No. 2 with dire consequences – There is nothing mentioned in charge sheet which would substantiate ingredients of Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC as discussed herein above – Allowing instant application.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Lolem, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. I have also heard Ms. L. Hage, the Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. S. Tapin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
2. The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) is filed for setting aside and quashing the order dated 07.02.2020 whereby charge was framed under Section 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) against the Petitioner herein in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No. 79/2016 registered under Sections 447/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 49/2017. The Petitioner has also challenged the charge sheet dated 07.01.2017 filed in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No. 79/2016 registered under Sections 447/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code by which charge under Section 506 (Part- II) of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the Petitioner as well as the connected criminal proceedings i.e. G.R. Case No. 49/2017 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh.
3. Before taking into consideration the contentions made by the parties, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts of the case. On 21.11.2016, an F.I.R. was filed by the Respondent No. 2 alleging inter-alia that on 18.11.2016, the brother-in-law of the Respondent No. 2 hosted a dinner party on the occasion of a marriage ceremony of his eldest son at his private residence located at Gour Hill Aalo where various persons, friends and relatives, well wishers alongwith the M.L.A of 31st Aalo East Constituency were invited. The Respondent No. 2 being the eldest son-in-law of the Lona family was entrusted to anchor the party. It was alleged that the said Respondent No. 2 noticed that the Petitioner was moving all around the party hall and causing annoyance to the guests and making them uncomfortable with his unnecessary arguments and in doing so also threatened the Executive Engineer, WRD, Aalo without any reason. The Respondent No. 2 further alleged in his F.I.R. that he requested the Petitioner to maintain etiquette and give proper respect to the invitees. But the Petitioner refused to do so and countered the Respondent No. 2 with abusive words. It was further alleged in the said F.I.R. that various guests left the party in view of the behavior of the Petitioner and as such the Respondent No. 2 on asking the Petitioner to behave properly, the Petitioner got furious and took out the revolver from his waist and pointed towards the Respondent No. 2 but nothing happened as in the meantime the Petitioner was intervened by other persons. It was further alleged that the Petitioner had stated that he would not do anything in the Lona house but would kill the Respondent No. 2 outside somewhere, sometime when he gets an opportunity.
4. A further perusal of the said F.I.R. would also show that it was alleged that after getting such threat from the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 had a reasonable apprehension that he may cause injury or harm to him in the days to come. It is on the basis of such allegations that the said FIR was lodged and registered and numbered as Aalo P.S. Case No. 79/2016 under Sections 447/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1)(B)/27 of the Arms Act.
5. Pursuant thereto, the investigation was carried out. During the investigation statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. It may be pertinent herein to mention that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded of the Respondent No. 2, he, inter-alia, stated that the Petitioner was disturbing some of the high profile guests and annoying them with his vulgar words and noticing the same, the Respondent No. 2 went straightly towards the Petitioner and held his hand and asked the Petitioner to leave the party. It was further stated that in
Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra
Manik Taneja vs. State of Karnataka
Allegations must meet specific legal criteria to support criminal charges; vague claims under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC should lead to quashing of FIR and proceedings.
The court quashed criminal proceedings for trespass and intimidation, highlighting that allegations lacked required intent and could be deemed malicious, thereby abusing the legal process.
Criminal intimidation requires specific threats intended to induce alarm; general expressions of sympathy do not establish the basis for charges under relevant sections of IPC.
The court emphasized that the essential ingredients of the offences must be present in the allegations to proceed with a criminal case, and the court may consider additional factors such as apology a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of criminal proceedings in a civil dispute and the requirement to consider whether a prima facie case is made out and whether the proceed....
While considering discharge application, Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not – In such proceedings, Court is not to hold mini trial b....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.