1. Insurance surveyor accused of criminal intimidation and intentional insult following a negative survey report — Complaint under Sections 504 and 506, IPC. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 496
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Vikram Johar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4820 of 2017)
Decided On : 26-04-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Ms. Pratiksha Tripathi, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Ms. Pratiksha Tripathi, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
When ingredients of offences complained of are not satisfied, accused will be entitled to discharge.
Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 239 r/w section 245 and 227 – Application for discharge – Court required to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. (Para 19)
(1979) 3 SCC 4; (2005) 1 SCC 568; (2015) 6 SCC 287 – Relied upon
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 504 and 506 – Allegation of abusing in filthy language and attempt to assault – Not satisfying ingredients of section 504 and 506. (Para 26, 27)
(2013) 14 SCC 44; (2015) 7 SCC 423 – Relied upon
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 239 r/w section 245 and 227 – Complaint of offence u/s 504 and 506 IPC – Complaint not satisfying ingredients of sections 504 and 506 – Held, appellant ought to be discharged. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
A fire broke out in the partnership company of the respondent-complainant who made a claim before the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed a appellant-surveyor who submitted that the claim is not admissible because of misrepresentation & false declaration. The claim was accordingly repudiated.
Complainant filed a complaint against appellant u/s 504 and 506 of I.P.C.
Police submitted closure report twice.
The appellant’s application for discharge was dismissed by the trial court.
Revision petition against the same was dismissed by the High court.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant ought to be discharged.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims malicious prosecution for harassment; respondents argue sufficient material exists to proceed with trial. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Allegations of abuse and threats without evidence of intent to cause alarm or provoke breach of peace fail to meet statutory requirements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 20 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. Mere abuse without intent to cause alarm or provoke breach of public peace does not satisfy ingredients of Sections 504 and 506, IPC. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 28 )
5. Appeal allowed — Lower court orders set aside — Appellant discharged from offences under Sections 504 and 506, IPC. (Para 29 )
6. What is the scope of a court's power when considering a discharge application under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
The judge must exercise judicial mind to determine if a prima facie case exists, sifting evidence to find sufficient grounds for proceeding without conducting a mini-trial or weighing evidence as in a full trial. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 )
7. What are the essential ingredients to establish an offence under Section 504 of the IPC?
It requires an intentional insult of such degree that it provokes the person to break public peace or commit another offence; mere abuse is insufficient. (Para 22 , 23 )
8. What must be proven to establish the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC?
The prosecution must prove the accused threatened injury to person, reputation, or property with the intent to cause alarm or compel the person to do or omit an act. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 )
9. How has the court addressed the potential misuse of Section 156(3) CrPC to harass statutory functionaries?
The court held that applications under Section 156(3) CrPC should be supported by an affidavit to make the applicant responsible for allegations and prevent the use of criminal courts to settle scores. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 06.02.2017 by which judgment, the criminal revision filed by the appellant was dismissed. The criminal revision was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting his discharge application moved under Section 239 read with Section 245 Cr.P.C. in a complaint case No.483 of 2013 under Section 504 and 506 of I.P.C.
3. The brief facts of the case, which need to be noted for deciding this appeal are:-
3.1 The respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”), was a partner of M/s. Ram Company engaged in business of wood processing and sale. The company had its premises at Kosikala, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
3.2 On 18.12.2010 at 3.00 AM fire broke into the premises of M/s. Ram Company. Fire brigade and police were informed, which reached on the spot and fire could be controlled after several hours. The cause of fire was shown as electric short circuit in electric cable. Fire caused damages of stocks, plant and machinery and building. M/s. Ram Company had taken a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy from M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. M/s. Ram Company had submitted insurance claim on 20.12.2010. Total claim raised by the company was Rs.3,62,45,114/-. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “insurance company”) appointed the appellant M/s. Protocol Surveyor and Engineers Private Limited, who is a certified surveyor by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. The appellant being Director of M/s. Protocol Surveyor and Engineers Private Limited undertook survey of insurance claim of the company.
3.3 On 04.04.2011, the appellant visited the premises at Kosikala, District Mathura for the purposes of preparing a survey report. Joint Inspection note was prepared on 04.04.2011, for which various documents were asked from the company. After various correspondences, the appellant submitted a final survey report dated 23.09.2011. M/s. Ram Company wrote letter dated 15.07.2011 and 22.07.2011 to the surveyor, which was duly replied on 23.07.2011 by the surveyor. M/S. Ram Company has also written to insurance company, which was replied by insurance company on 08.08.2011 informing M/s. Ram Company that surveyors have been asked to submit their final report at the earliest.
3.4 On 11.09.2011, the M/s Ram Company submitted a letter to insurance company requesting to make payment of policy amount of Rs. 285.60 Lacs. In the said letter, some complaints were also made against the surveyor. Again on 19.09.2011, a letter was sent by M/s. Ram Company to the insurance company, where allegations were made against the surveyor. The surveyor, i.e., the appellant submitted final report on 23.09.2011 with regard to claim of M/s. Ram Company, in detail noticing all aspects of the matter. In the Survey Report in the last paragraph, following was stated:-
“(15) Underwriters Liability In view of the above, it stands established that
(a) The insured has mis represented their claim of building.
(b) The insured has mis represented their claim of Plant & Machinery.
(c) The insured had made false declaration to inflate the stock quantity.
(d) The insured had made false declaration on the stock value declaration.
This policy shall be voidable in the event of mis representation, mis description or non disclosure of any material particular.
If the claim be in any respect fraudulent, or if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the wilful act, or with the connivance of the insured, all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited.
It is clear that the insured’s Mis representation & False declaration have breached both the above stated policy cond
