HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ANIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 5626/2016
Criminal Intimidation - Proceedings Quashed - IPC Section 341, 506 - The court found that the allegations did not satisfy the essential elements of the alleged offenses, leading to an abuse of judicial process due to lack of intent to intimidate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employees of a store, were alleged to have intimidated the complainants after stopping a minor for stealing a toy. Following apologies and payment for the toy, a complaint was later filed alleging intimidation and overcharging.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the charges and found that the necessary elements to substantiate the offenses under IPC Sections 341 and 506 were not established, particularly the lack of intent to intimidate.
Issues: Whether the allegations against the petitioners under IPC Sections 341 and 506 constitute valid offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The essence of criminal intimidation requires an intent to cause alarm that was not present in this case, leading to no grounds for prosecution.
Final Decision: Proceedings quashed against the petitioners.
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 47 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Section 341 , 506 (i) r/w 34 of IPC .
2.The prosecution case is that, the petitioners intimidated the victims in this case telling them that they will tell everywhere that they are thiefs and it is further alleged that they had collected more than the bill amount towards fine.
Annexure A3 is the final report in this case.
3.According to the petitioners, they are sale staffs in the books and toys shop named as “Crossword” at Lulu mall Edappally, Ernakulam. On
15.11.2015, the son of the defacto complainant and his cousin came to Crossword store with some other relatives. After few minutes of roaming inside the shop, they left the shop without purchasing anything, while the boys stayed back in the shop is the submission. The son of the 2nd respondent thereafter stepped out of the shop taking along with him a toy which was stuffed into his pocket without paying for the same. Immediately, the petitioners herein stopped the boy, the son of the 2nd respondent herein from taking away the toy and going further. Having caught the boy with the toy, the boy was apologetic and begged not to inform anybody is the submission. The boy along with his cousin further stated that their parents were in the nearby shop and they will come and give the money for the toy. It is submitted that the petitioners did not want to create an issue and therefore, requested the boy to call the 2 nd respondent, who he said was in the next shop. The 2 nd respondent came to the shop along with her relations and understood about the act of the boys and by seeing the crowd, 2nd respondent apologized for the mistake of the boys and paid the amount for the toy and collected the bill and left the shop with the boys is the submission. It is submitted that the father of one of the boy was not satisfied with the above action and he immediately contacted the owner of the store and told that they were wealthy enough and his son was studying in Choice school and it was totally unacceptable that his son attempted to commit theft. Subsequently, the husband of the 2nd respondent insisted that the petitioners make an apology to him and his family and the same was denied. Thereafter, he threatened that the petitioners have to face consequences. Therefore, it is alleged that the defacto complainant filed a complaint before the 1st respondent alleging that the petitioners collected more than the actual amount of the toy and the incident created mental pain to them. Annexure-A1 is the complaint. Annexure-A2 is the FIR registered based on the complaint under Secs.
341, 506(1) r/w 34 IPC . Thereafter, Annexure-A3 final report is filed.
4.This Court perused Annexure-A3 final report. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Secs.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC . It will be better to extract the allegation in Annexure-A3 final report.
1 “ മുതൽ 4 വരരെയുള്ള പ്രതതികൾ ചചേർനന്ന് പ്രപ്രായപൂർതതിയപ്രാകപ്രാത 4 ഉഉം 5 ഉഉം സപ്രാകതികരള ചമപ്രാഷപ്രാക്കൾ എനന്ന് പറഞന്ന് 15.11.2015 തതീയതതി പകൽ 2.30 മണതിക്കന്ന് തൃക്കപ്രാക്കരെ ചനപ്രാർതന്ന് വതിചല്ലേജന്ന് പുതുപള്ളതിപ്രഉംകരെയതിൽ ഇടപ്പള്ളതി ഭപ്രാഗതന്ന് രതക്കന്ന് വടക്കപ്രായതി കതിടക്കുന NH-47 ചദേശതീയ പപ്രാതയുരട പടതിഞപ്രാറു വശഉം കതിഴക്കന്ന് ദേർശനതതിലുള്ള ലുലു ഇന്റർനപ്രാഷണൽ മപ്രാളതിരന്റ രെണപ്രാഉം നതിലയതിൽ വടക്കന്ന് ഭപ്രാഗത്തുള്ള FE 05, FE 06 നമ്പർ എസ്കചലറ്ററതിരന്റ വടക്കന്ന് പടതിഞപ്രാചറമൂല ഭപ്രാഗതന്ന് കപ്രാണുന cross word എന കടയുരട അകതന്ന് പടതിഞപ്രാചറ ഭപ്രാഗത്തുള്ള സസഡന്ന് മുറതിയതിൽ അനനപ്രായമപ്രായതി തടഞ്ഞു രവചഉം 1-ആഉം പ്രതതി രമപ്രാസബൈൽ ചഫപ്രാണതിൽ 4-ഉഉം 5-ഉഉം സപ്രാകതികളുരട ചഫപ്രാചടപ്രാ എടുത്തുഉം അതതിൽ ചമപ്രാഷപ്രാക്കൾ എരനഴുതതി എല്ലേപ്രായതിടത്തുഉം ഒടതിചരവക്കുഉം എനന്ന് പറഞന്ന് ഭതീഷണതിരപ്പടുതതിയുഉം 4 ഉഉം 5 ഉഉം സപ്രാകതികൾ ടതി ചഷപ്രാപ്പതിൽ നതിനഉം എടുതന്ന് കളതിച്ച പപ്രാസതിക്കതിരന്റ പപ്രാമ്പതിരന്റ രൂപതതിലുള്ള കളതിപ്പപ്രാടതതിരന്റ വതിലയുരട 3 ഇരെടതി വതിലയപ്രാ
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.