Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 778
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Surinder Suri
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Misc. No. 20737 of 1995,
Decided On : MAY 9, 1996
A threat, in order to be indictable under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, must be one which can be put into execution by the person threatening and must be made with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere vague allegations by the accused that he is going to take revenge by false complaints cannot amount to criminal intimidation.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION - SECTION 503 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - INGREDIENTS - THREAT MUST BE ONE WHICH CAN BE PUT INTO EXECUTION BY THE PERSON THREATENING - MERE VAGUE ALLEGATION BY THE ACCUSED THAT HE IS GOING TO TAKE REVENGE BY FALSE COMPLAINTS CANNOT AMOUNT TO CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Surinder Suri and Ramesh Kumar, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash FIR No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 registered against them under Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly threatening and abusing the complainant, Pawan Kumar, who is the brother of Surinder Suri's wife, Vinay Kumari. The petitioners claimed that the FIR was filed with malicious intent and was an abuse of the process of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made in the FIR did not constitute a cognizable offence and that the FIR was filed with malicious intent to wreak vengeance on the petitioners due to private and personal grudges. The court also found that the delay in lodging the FIR and the failure of the complainant to report the matter to the police promptly raised suspicions about the genuineness of the allegations.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations made in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the FIR was filed with malicious intent and was an abuse of the process of the court?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations made in the FIR did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines criminal intimidation. The court found that the threat alleged by the complainant was not one that could be put into execution by the petitioners and that it was unlikely to have caused alarm to the complainant. The court also held that the FIR was filed with malicious intent and was an abuse of the process of the court, as it was motivated by private and personal grudges rather than a genuine desire to vindicate the law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 registered against the petitioners under Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
M.L.Singhal, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Surinder Suri and Ramesh Kumar sons of Kimti Lal whereby they have preyed for the quashing of FIR No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 under Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, P.S. City Jagadhri and the resultant proceedings thereof pending before Ms. Sarita Gupta, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri.
2. Before adverting the grounds on which they have prayed for the quashing of aforesaid FIR and the resultant proceedings thereof pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, it would be necessary to give brief background of their relations inter se.
3. Smt Vinay Kumari, sister of Pawan Kumar respondent was married to Surinder Suri on 28.4.1988 at Yamunanagar according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. From their wedlock, two children were born. Unfortunately, they could not enjoy marital bliss for long and their marriage ran into rough weather. Surinder Suri instituted petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Smt. Vinay Kumari on 4.8.1994 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar. In response to the process issued by the Court, Smt. Vinay Kumari appeared in Court. Surinder Suri withdrew that petition for divorce on assurance having been given by Smt. Vinay Kumari that she would not misbehave with him (Surinder Suri) and his parents. Addl. District Judge, Yamunanagar dismissed that petition having compromised in view of the statement of Surinder Suri. In fact, the compromise did not emanate from the core of the heart of Vinay Kumari, her brothers and father. Her father Mulkh Raj and brothers Pawan Kumar and Mukesh Kumar did not desire that Smt. Vinay Kumari should co-habit with her husband and stay in the matrimonial home like a dutiful wife.
4. Surinder Suri instituted petition for divorce against Smt. Vinay Kumari on 4.10.1994 when it had transpired that she was not being sent to the matrimonial home by her father Mulkh Raj and brothers Mukesh Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Court issued process for her appearance before it for 9.11.1994. Process was duly served upon her on 27.10.1994.
5. Smt. Vinay Kumari instituted case under Section 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code against Surinder Suri and others. It was a police case. Police investigated the case and challan was submitted against him and others. Ramesh Suri and Surinder Suri instituted complaint against brothers and sister-in-law i.e. brothers wife of Smt Vinay Kumari under Sections 405/406/467/471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as they are partners of Lal Finance Company for the recovery of Rs. 3 lacs. Police investigated the case and was going to submit the final report. Pawan Kumar is real brother of Smt. Vinay Kumari. In conspiracy with the members of his (Pawan Kumar) family, he tried to drag Surinder Suri into different cases. High Court granted bail to Surinder Suri in case FIR No. 278/95 on 1.8.1995. Thereafter, Pawan Kumar and his family became thirsty for his blood. Pawan Kumar is a Press Reporter of Punjab Kesri. He was able to secure registration of the case against Surinder Suri etc. under Section 506/34, Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 297/95 dated 4.8.1995 by exercising the influence of some senior officers of the Police department.
6. In nut-shell, the parties are at war with each other because of strained relations of Smt. Vinay Kumari with her husband Surinder Suri whose marriage had run into rough weather and they become thirsty for each others blood.
7. It has been prayed that this Court should have a peep into the facts of this FIR No. 297/95 dated 4.8.1995 microscopically in the light of the aforesaid backdrop to find out whether the facts set up by Pawan Kumar have any grain of truth in them or he has authored this first information report only with a view of stall Surinder Suri from claiming matrimonial relief against his wife Smt. Vinay Kumari and this first information report is abuse of t
