2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19234
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JOJO JOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 7208/2018
Charges must be substantiated by evidence; mere allegations without proof do not justify prosecution.
Headnote:
Criminal - Quashing of Prosecution - Indian Penal Code Section List - The court found that no offences were made out against the petitioners under the IPC sections cited, emphasizing the need for substantive evidence to pursue charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of criminally trespassing, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and mischief on the complainant's property during a photo-taking incident.
Issues: Whether the allegations against the petitioners under IPC sections 447, 323, 506(i), and 426 are substantiated enough to continue prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence for any of the alleged offences necessitated quashing the prosecution proceedings, as mere allegations were insufficient.
Final Decision: Prosecution against the petitioners is quashed.
This criminal miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.523/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba. Petitioners are the accused in the above case. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 447 , 323, 506(i) and 426 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
2.The gist of the prosecution case is that on 13.01.2018 at 10.30 am, the accused criminally trespassed into the quarry land of the defacto complainant for taking photographs of the quarry and pushed away the security man and criminally intimidated the workers who tried to prevent them and thus committed the offence.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I also heard the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4.The short point raised by the petitioners is that even if the entire allegations are accepted in toto, no offences are made out as alleged. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offence under Section 447 IPC is not attracted because as per the scene mahazar, the alleged incident happened on the roadside. It is also submitted that the offence under Section 323 is also not made out because no hurt caused to anybody and the prosecution has no evidence to prove that anybody sustained any hurt. It is also submitted that there is no ingredients to attract Sections 506 and 426 . The counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that prima facie the offence is made out. The counsel submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners are to be raised at the time of trial and this Court may not interfere with the criminal prosecution against the petitioners at this stage.
5.This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. Annexure-E is the scene mahazar in the above case. A perusal of the same would show that the place of occurrence is at the roadside. It cannot be said that if the petitioners reached the roadside, the offence under Section 447 IPC is made out. Therefore the offence under is not made out even if the entire allegations are accepted.
6.The other offence alleged is under Section 323 IPC . This Court perused the final report and other documents produced by the prosecution. Absolutely no oral or medical evidence is produced by the prosecution to prove that there is any hurt caused to the victim. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that the offence under is also attracted.
7.The offence under Section 506 IPC is also alleged against the petitioners. The ingredients of is considered by the Apex Court in Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another [2015 KHC 4046] . It will be beneficial to extract paragraphs 13 to 15 of the above judgment:
- “13. S.506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation.
- "Criminal intimidation" as defined in S.503 IPC is as under:
- "503. Criminal Intimidation.-- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
- Explanation.-- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
- 14. A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
- 15. In the insta