The absence of credible threats undermines the charge of criminal intimidation under the IPC.

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1303/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Attingal. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 451 and 506(i)

r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated her, by demanding an amount of Rs.2.5 lakh, which was said to have been outstanding as liability to a person by name ‘Ajitha’ from the father of the defacto complainant.

3. The case has been registered by the Kallambalam Police on

08.04.2019 on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant.

4. After the completion of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kallambalam Police Station, laid the Final Report alleging the commission of aforesaid offences.

5. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that they are totally innocent, and that a false case has been foisted against them.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

7. In the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant, what is stated is that the petitioners, who were the representatives of the residents’ association of that area, came to the house of the defacto complainant and told her that an amount of Rs.2.5 lakh, which her father is bound to pay to a person by name ‘Ajitha’, who also belonged to the same residents’ association, has to be handed over to them, and that they were duly authorised to deal with the aforesaid amount from the ‘Station’.

8. According to the defacto complainant, the above words of the petitioners amounted to criminal intimidation. The criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 IPC reads as follows:

“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.”

9. It is clear from the aforesaid provision of law that in the absence of any threat to cause injury to the person, reputation or property, with the intent to cause alarm or to compel that person to do any act which she is not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, no offence as envisaged under Section 506 IPC would come into play.

10. As far as the present case is concerned, the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant, and the statements given by the other witnesses, are not capable of showing that the petitioners resorted to threatening the defacto complainant, with injury to her person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any other person in whom the defacto complainant is interested, with the intent to cause alarm to her or to compel her to do an act which she is not legally entitled to do. Therefore, the offences alleged in the Final Report, are not prima facie attracted, even if the entire contentions of the prosecution, as disclosed by the Final Report, are accepted as such.

Needless to say, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the proceedings against them, deserves to be allowed.

In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1303/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magis