Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2209
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. DEVADASS, J.
Kutty @ Jeyasubramaniya Raja - Petitioner
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam - Respondent
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 484 of 2016 & Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 5674 of 2016
Decided On : 22-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V. Krishnamoorthy
For the Respondent: S. Prabha
The central legal point established is the requirement of incriminating materials to proceed further and the interpretation of offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C. at the stage of framing charges.
Headnote:
discharge petition - Criminal Procedure - Sections 420, 341, 294(b), 506(i) of I.P.C. - The judgment discusses the legal provisions under Section 240 and 245 of Cr.P.C. for framing charges, the requirement of incriminating materials to proceed further, and the interpretation of offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C. influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a discharge petition after being charged with offences under Sections 420, 341, 294(b), and 506(i) of I.P.C. The accused argued that it was a civil case related to a business transaction, and the complaint was filed with criminal allegations after a settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the materials and legal provisions under Cr.P.C. Sections 240 and 245, emphasizing the need for incriminating materials to frame charges. The court found that the allegations did not warrant offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C., and the accused was discharged from the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the case, the sufficiency of incriminating materials, and the applicability of the charged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of incriminating materials to proceed further, the interpretation of offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C., and the limitations on framing charges at the initial stage.
Final Decision: The accused was discharged from the case based on the insufficiency of incriminating materials to warrant the charged offences.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his discharge petition in Crl. M.P. No. 7050 of 2016 in C.C. No. 325 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, the accused has directed this revision.
2. Cr. No. 753 of 2013 has been registered by the police as against the petitioner. After investigation, the Police filed the final report before the said Magistrate for offences under Sections 420, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C., on the ground that the petitioner had cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of Rs.73,265/- and on 21.09.2013, at about 9.30 a.m., near a place in Rajapalayam, he had wrongfully restrained him and abused him in filthy language and also criminally intimidated him.
3. The learned Magistrate coming to the conclusion that there is ground to proceed further as against the accused has dismissed the discharge petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that out and out it is a civil case. There was business transaction as between both in the supply of charcoal. Some dues arose. Defacto complainant claimed Rs.6,98,265/-. It was settled at Rs.6,25,000/- in full quit. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant, cooked up this case for the balance amount of Rs.73,265/-. In this connection, he has also added criminal flavour to his complaint by alleging that he has abused him in filthy language, wrongfully restrained him and also criminally intimidated him.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as it is purely a civil case, an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is not attracted.
6. The leaned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that earlier, the de-facto complainant had lodged a complaint with D.I.G., complaining that the accused has abused him in filthy language. The money issue was over by paying him Rs.6,25,000/- in full quit. However, for the very same matter, again, he has filed a private complaint before the Magistrate. That has become the basis for the present F.I.R.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that criminal intimidation and wrongful restraintment were alleged to have been taken place on 21.09.2013. However, the complaint itself was filed on 20.09.2013. The statement of witnesses is also on similar lines.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even taking the allegations as such, it would not warrant an offence under section 506(i) I.P.C. A mere word of threat unaccompanied by any overt act or mere mensrea or expression of outburst will not amount to criminal intimidation.
9. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner also cited Dr. Subramanianswamy v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Pudukottai (2000 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 646).
10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the complaint itself has been registered based on the direction of this Court issued in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 804 of 2013 dated 04.12.2013. Further, the quash petition filed by the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 6626 of 2014 also has been dismissed by this Court. Further, upon consideration of the materials, having found that there is ground to proceed further, the learned Magistrate has framed charges as against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. In such circumstances, the order of dismissal of discharge petition cannot be faulted. And it also does not suffer from any legality or propriety. Further, after framing of the charges, petitioner cannot maintain this revision.
11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order, the materials on record and the decision cited.
12. Framing of charge is an important judicial function of a criminal Court. Under Section 240 Cr.P.C., in a warrant-case instituted upon a police report the Court must consider the materials presented by the police along with its said report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., consisting of F.I.R., statement of witnesses recorded under Secti
