The court held that general allegations without specific incidents fail to establish a prima facie case for offences under the Indian Penal Code, allowing for quashing of proceedings based on abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2100 of 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2018 whereby and where under the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima-facie case for the offences punishable under Section 323 /324/504/506 and 452 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioners.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are the brothers of the wife of the complainant/opposite party no.2. The sister of the petitioners married the complainant in the year 2002. There were several instances of the petitioners ill-treating their sister’s mother-in-law including assaulting her and threatening the complainant to ruin him and there is also allegation against the petitioners of aiding and abetting their sister in all her such acts. The complaint was filed on 22.07.2014 and on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi found prima facie case for the said offences against the petitioners. It is pertinent to mention here that during the recording of the solemn affirmation of the complainant in the court, the learned Magistrate observed that, the complainant has noted down the gist of the statement to be made on his solemn affirmation in his palm, which fact was detected and mentioned on solemn affirmation of the complainant, by the learned Magistrate. Upon being caught doing so, the complainant expressed his regret for doing so and apologized.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 , para -24 and 25 of which reads as under:-

“24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] .

25. Now, reverting back to Section 506 , which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following:

“… The prosecution mus