The court ruled that vague intimidation and civil transactions do not satisfy the elements of criminal charges under IPC, allowing the discharge of the accused.

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, in Crl.M.P. No.2178 of 2023 dated 11.07.2023 (filed by A3) and Crl.M.P. No.5802 of 2023 dated 24.08.2023 (filed by A2) in C.C. No.938 of 2020, whereby the petitions for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., 2023, were dismissed.

2. Case Background:

The prosecution case is that A1 to A3 borrowed Rs.12,70,200/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventy Thousand and Two Hundred only) from the de facto complainant, repaid Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only), executed a writing on Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred only) stamp paper for Rs.11,80,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only), but failed to repay the balance of Rs. 9,80,200/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Thousand and Two Hundred only). It is further alleged that when repayment was sought, the accused threatened the complainant. Thus, offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC were alleged. A2 and A3 moved discharge petitions contending that the materials on record did not disclose the essential ingredients of either offence. The learned Magistrate dismissed both petitions. Hence, these revisions.

3. Petitioners’ Contentions:

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended:

Contradictions exist between the FIR and the final report, especially on the place of occurrence and rough sketch, vitiating the prosecution version. The transactions were at best civil/commercial in nature. Money transfers are admitted, but there was no dishonest inducement at inception; hence, Section 420 IPC is not attracted. Reliance was placed on Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U.P.,¹, which held that civil disputes cannot be criminalised absent dishonest intention at inception. It was further propounded that, Section 506 IPC is not made out, since the FIR is silent on date, time, and particulars of threats; the complaint was lodged after five months’ delay; vague oral threats cannot constitute criminal intimidation. Reliance was placed on Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka², Ramesh Kanna v. Inspector of Police, 2024³, and Noble Mohandoss v. State⁴, for the proposition, the alleged “promissory note” is invalid/ fabricated no date/month, only one 12024 (1) Crimes 84 (SC) 2(2015) 1 MWN (Cr.) 361 (SC) signature, incomplete witnesses, and inconsistent recitals. A2 was only a salaried nurse, A3 a 60+ housewife; neither had any role in borrowals. They are implicated solely to exert pressure. It was further submitted that as per M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI, [(2020) 2 SCC 768], and P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala⁶, if even accepting prosecution materials no offence is made out, discharge must follow. The trial Judge erred in acting mechanically without testing whether the allegations created only suspicion or grave suspicion.

4. Respondent’s Contentions:

Learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the prosecution opposed the revisions, submitting:

At discharge stage, the Court must accept prosecution materials as true and only see if they raise grave suspicion. Bank records show transfers of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) into A2’s account. The writing acknowledging Rs.11,80,000/- (Rupees 3(1) MWN (Cr.) 153

4 1988 (2) MWN (Cr.) 184 6 (2010) 2 SCC 398 Eleven Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only) liability evidences dishonest inducement. Whether the amounts were repaid or not is a matter for trial, not discharge. Reliance was placed on Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(1999) 3 SCC 259], holding that cheating can ar