ORAL ORDER

1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Valimohammed Pathan waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.II-321 of 2019 registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto.

3. The present dispute arises from a matrimonial dispute between the complainant-husband and his wife. The petitioner is alleged to be the paramour of the wife of the respondent No.2 and therefore, the above FIR has been lodged by the complainant-husband. There are divorce proceedings going on and a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been filed by the wife. It is alleged that the complainant in order to avoid any type of investigation has alleged that Whatsapp calls have been made and the petitioner has been roped in by allegedly falsely framing him.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Meet V. Jani submitted that on perusal of the FIR which is filed for the offence punishable under Section 507 of the IPC, it is alleged that the accused has given threats thrice on telephone/Whatsapp to the first informant with dire consequences. Learned advocate Mr. Meet V. Jani would submit that the offences under Section 507 of the IPC would be maintainable only if there is named threat whereas in the present case, the FIR is filed against the present petitioner named herein after after identifying the accused on the basis of the threat and therefore, the offence under Section 507 of the IPC are not attracted and therefore, it is submitted the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned advocate for respondent no.2, original complainant Mr. Valimohammed Pathan, submitted that the petitioner herein has been named in the FIR on the ground that the accused has a good relationship with the wife of the first informant and based upon such a relationship, he is alleged to have been continuously administering threats to the first informant. Looking to the above conduct of the petitioner, it is submitted that this Court may not grant the prayers prayed for in this petition.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that any First Information Report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein and submitted that necessary order of dismissal may be passed by this Court.

7. This Court has heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and has perused the material on record. At this stage to refer to Section 507 of the IPC which reads as under :-

“507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication-

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section.”

Thus, it is clear that in order to establish the contents of criminal intimidation, the same should be by way of anonymous communication and the accused should have taken the precaution to conceal the name/abode of the person from whom the threat comes.

8. In the present case, looking to the tenure of the FIR, the ingredients of Section 507 of the IPC are made out. Even if it is alleged to be a case of criminal intimidation, the same should have been administered to the first informant to cause alarm to that person. In these facts and circumstances, I find it difficult to direct the petitioner to face further proceedings.

9. In the case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR

1992 S