Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 745 (GUJ)

Nalinbhai Amirali Bhanvadiya v. State of Gujarat

2019-07-18

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2019
JUDGMENT: A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR registered at Maliya-Hatina Police Station, District Junagadh being C.R. No. II-3028/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. The brief facts of the present case leading to filing of the present application are as under: 2.1. The informant was working as Clerk-cum-Librarian in Girnar High School at Maliya. On 25.02.2014, the Joint Secretary of the School filed a false complaint against the complainant and thereafter, the Joint Secretary and Secretary of the school threatened to kill her. Thereafter, the complainant's resignation was taken by pressuring and under the threat of bogus misappropriation case. On 28.02.2014, the complainant filed a complaint against the applicants at Malia-Hatina Police Station. However, till today no action was initiated pursuant thereto and hence, the complainant was required to lodge an FIR. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Malvi appearing for the applicants has submitted that the applicant No. 1 is the Secretary and applicant No. 2 is the Joint Secretary of the school. He has submitted that the Prince Agakhan Momin Ismaili Academy at Maliya-Hatina having Registration No. B-430 registered with Charity Commissioner, Junagadh and was established in the year 1945 and is engaged in imparting education in English Medium to the under privileged children of remote areas of Taluka Maliya-Hatina, District Junagadh. He has also submitted that even the Trust has provided hostel for boys and girls and is imparting education to the under privileged children with the help of donations. He has further submitted that there are donors, who are paying fees of the students, more particularly, the entire educational activities are on the base of donations and school fees whatever received. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Malvi for the applicants has submitted that on 24.02.2014, the Trust had received donation of Rs. 1,95,900/- towards the fees of 30 students, which was received by the complainant and without crediting the same in the accounts, she had issued the receipt and had taken the amount to her home, which was objected by the applicant No. 2 and the Principal of the school. He has submitted that, however, the complainant had taken the said amount to her residence. He has submitted that, however, the complainant had taken the said amount to her residence. He has also submitted that thereafter on the next day, the complaint's father started threatening with dire consequences to the applicants as the applicant No. 2 is residing alone at Maliya-Hatina and hence, the applicant No. 2 has lodged the FIR on 25.02.2014 at Maliya-Hatina Police Station against the complainant and her father. He has further submitted that since the applicant No. 2 filed FIR, the complainant returned the amount of Rs. 1,95,900/- and resigned from the school on 25.02.2014. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Malvi for the applicants has submitted that on 28.02.2014, the complainant has lodged the FIR at Maliya-Hatina Police Station alleging that her resignation was taken under the threat of filing the misappropriation case in collusion with the police constables. He has submitted that since the complainant used to make complaint to various other authorities by alleging that her resignation was forcefully taken or it was obtained under the threat of police case, the impugned FIR has been registered against the present applicants. He has also submitted that on being threatened, the applicant No. 2 had lodged an FIR being C.R. No. II-3029 of 2014 registered at Maliya-Hatina Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 507 and 114 of the IPC against the complainant and her father. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Malvi for the applicants has submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted to be true in its entirety without admitting the same to be true, then also prima-facie no offence much less an offence punishable under Sections 506(2) and 114 of the IPC is not made out against the present applicants. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Malvi for the applicants has submitted that on a plain reading of the FIR, it is manifest that none of the ingredients of Sections 506(2) and 114 of the IPC are satisfied and therefore, no prima-facie case is made out against the present applicants. He has submitted that the uncontroverted allegations made in the impugned FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence and does not make out any case against the present applicants. He has submitted that the uncontroverted allegations made in the impugned FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence and does not make out any case against the present applicants. He has also submitted that the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside since there is a delay of lodging the impugned FIR. He has further submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged on 28.06.2014 for the occurrence of the alleged on 25.02.2014, hence no offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC can be said to have been established since the late lodging of the FIR would depict that no alarm was caused to the complainant. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing for the respondent No. 2-complainant has submitted that at this stage the impugned FIR may not be quashed and set aside since prima-facie the offence of Section 506(2) is established. 9. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt has submitted that since prima-facie the offence of criminal intimidation has been established, the impugned FIR may not be quashed and set aside. 10. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. I have also examined the contents of the FIR. 11. The contents of the FIR reveal that it is alleged by the first informant that on 25.02.2014, the applicant No. 2 has filed a false complaint against her and thereafter, the applicants have threatened her. It was further alleged by her that her resignation was taken by pressuring and under the threat of lodging a bogus misappropriation case and further it is stated that on 28.02.2014, she had given a complaint to the Maliya-Hatina Police Station, however, no action has been taken. 12. It is not in dispute that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 3 days. Section 503 of the IPC defines "criminal intimidation", which reads as under: "503. 12. It is not in dispute that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 3 days. Section 503 of the IPC defines "criminal intimidation", which reads 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. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation." Section 506 of the IPC prescribes for "Punishment for criminal intimidation", which reads as under: "506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 13. As regards the offence under section 506(2) of the IPC is concerned, no offence is said to have been established against the applicants in the present case since the contents of the FIR reveal that the alleged criminal intimidation has not caused any alarm to the complainant. The complainant has not stated that the threat administered by the applicants caused immediate fear of harm/injury being inflicted on her. The delay of lodging the FIR dilutes the ingredient of causing the alarm if no proper explanation is tendered for such delay. The complainant has not stated that the threat administered by the applicants caused immediate fear of harm/injury being inflicted on her. The delay of lodging the FIR dilutes the ingredient of causing the alarm if no proper explanation is tendered for such delay. It is settled proposition of law that mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant would not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. It appears that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged with an oblique motive to wreck vengeance against the applicants, who have registered a complaint against her, hence the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 14. On the backdrop of the aforenoted analysis, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No. II-3028/2014 registered at Maliya-Hatina Police Station, District Junagadh, as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.