An FIR for criminal intimidation must demonstrate intent to cause alarm with proximate threats, which the court found lacking in this case.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed praying inter alia for quashing of the FIR being CR No. 11196008240020/2024 registered with J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara City which is at Annexure – A. The FIR came to be registered under Section 424 , 427, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC.

2. The undisputed facts are, that the complainant side is running a school in a common plot of Binanagar Co- operative Housing Society, which is a co-operative society and on the date of incident, as per the allegation, the wall constructed of the school was removed with the use of JCB and prior thereto, there was a talk for settling the matter with regards to the encroachment made on the common plot by the school and during that period, verbal altercation had taken place wherein threats of life were issued. With these allegations, the FIR came to be registered on 20.01.2024.

3. The petitioners, who are implicated as accused persons, are the members of the Binanagar Co-Operative society and when they approached this Court, this Court had passed detailed order on 31.01.2024 and granted interim relief in terms of Para 35(B), while admitting the petition. Accordingly, the proceedings were stayed. However, when the matter is taken up, learned APP has placed on record the report of Police Sub Inspector of J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara City, which is ordered to be taken on record.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there was an ongoing dispute, wherein the petitioners, who are the members of the Co-operative Housing Society, had brought to the notice of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation about the encroachment by the school and the need to remove such encroachment as the same was without any prior permission from the Authority, to which the Municipal Corporation had responded to the Society for taking up the issue with the managing committee/members of the society and to pass necessary resolution and forward the copy of such resolution to the Municipal Corporation so as to enable the Corporation to take an action under section 260(1)(2) of GPMC Act,1949.

5. Learned Advocate has submitted that, in view of the aforesaid intimation from the Corporation, the society had taken a decision by passing a resolution dated 08.05.2023 and resolved to take necessary action for removing the illegal construction of the school. It is in this interregnum period, before the action could be taken, that the incident is alleged to have taken place and the FIR came to be registered.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has, at the outset, submitted that the FIR which is registered under section 424, 427 and 506(2) of the IPC would not have been registered as none of the ingredients are made out, more particularly, the ingredients of section 506(2) are not at all made out and in absence of any ingredients of section 506(2), the FIR could not have been registered simply for the offences under section 424 and 427 of the IPC. In this connection, learned Advocate has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Dinesh alias MukeshBhai Jitabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2016 JX (Guj) 446, wherein in turn the Court has relied upon the decision in case of Ronak Ashokbhai Kedia v. State of Gujarat , wherein specifically the ingredients of 506(2) have been defined and in absence of any such ingredients of section

506(2) with cause and alarm and proximate period during which such threats have been issued the ingrediants of Section 506(2) could not be made out. The Court has held in Para – 16 as under:

16 In the case of Ronak Ashok Kedia v. State of Gujarat [Criminal M