Allegations in the FIR must constitute a prima facie case; mere threats without causing alarm do not satisfy the criteria for criminal intimidation under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

G.SATAPATHY, J.

1. The petitioner seeks the indulgence of the Court to quash the order passed on 02.07.2012 by learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 419 of 2011 taking cognizance of offences U/Ss. 448/294/506 of IPC under Annexure-3 and consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising thereof.

2. Facts giving rise to this CRLMC in precise are on 11.04.2011 OPNo.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioner and his brother before the I.I.C. Cantonment P.S. alleging therein that on 11.04.2011 at about 3.45 P.M. in the afternoon, while she being the president of their organization was discussing with the administrator of WAKF Board in his chamber for issue relating to maintenance of divorcee (Talaki) women, all of a sudden the sons of the administrator namely, Sifka Tulla and Aheshan Tulla along with seven to eight others by entering into such chamber abused her in filthy language by saying (“SALI BEDHEI GHODAGHEI THOTHE SALI KIYEH KAHILA YEH CASERE MUNDA PURAIBAKU”) and the two brothers by saying as to why she was pocking her nose on this issue pushed and pulled her wearing apparels and when she protested, both of them pushed and pulled her by holding tuft of her hair and gave fist and kick blows. At this time, on the commotion of the informant, the divorcee women coming in front of the office raised hullah and thereafter, they (two brothers and their associates) pressed her(informant) neck and when she shouted by saying “MARIGALI MARIGALI”, they jointly abused and threatened her to kill.

On the above FIR of OPNo.2, Cantonment P.S. Case No. 39 of 2011 was registered and the matter was investigated into by a SI of Police who submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable U/Ss. 448/294/506 of IPC under which cognizance was taken by impugned order. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court in this CRLMC for the relief indicated supra.

3. In the course of hearing of CRLMC, learned counsel for the petitioner and State have filed separate written note of submission along with citations in addition to their oral submissions, but none appears for OPNo.2 despite having appeared through a learned counsel earlier.

4. Mr.G.Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in course of argument has submitted that the allegations on record do not disclose the necessary ingredients for commission of offence U/Ss. 448/294/506 of IPC and he, accordingly, prayed to quash the impugned order as well as the criminal proceeding against the petitioner by further submitting that when the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused and where the allegations made in the FIR and complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, the Court can terminate such proceedings by exercising inherent power. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case in State of Haryana and Others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others ; (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335.
4.1 In reply, Mr.S.S.Pradhan, learned AGA by taking into the facts of the case submits that the allegations on record disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence with which the petitioner has been alleged and finding prima facie case against the petitioner, the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack has taken cognizance of offences by the impugned order and, therefore, the criminal proceeding cannot