JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 511 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 115(2), 229, 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352, 324, 329(3), 336(3), 338, 336(4), 340(2), 343, 308(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 being the directors of Media Eleven Private Limited- a company, took the premises of the informant on rent but defaulted in paying rent and did not vacate the said premises. The informant filed JBC Case No. 38 of 2017 for eviction of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner no.2 filed a false affidavit in the said JBC Case No. 38 of 2017 hence, it is alleged that the petitioner no.2 Arup Chatterjee has given false evidence and fabricated false affidavit in a judicial proceeding. It is further alleged that JBC Case No. 38 of 2017 has been allowed in favour of the informant and the execution proceeding was also going on and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile, petitioner nos.2 and 3 have been evicted from the tenanted premises of the informant; which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-the informant of the case. It is further alleged that the petitioner no.2 is a history sheeter, being involved in 43 different cases, the list of which have been annexed and he is threatening the informant by himself and through the petitioner nos.1 and 4- who are the staffs of the said Media Eleven Private Limited. After registration of the case, police is investigating the case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, still, no offence punishable in law is made out against the petitioners. After registration of the case, police is investigating the case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, still, no offence punishable in law is made out against the petitioners. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false and this criminal proceeding has been initiated to harass the petitioners by wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner no.2, who runs the satellite news channel and is a senior journalist. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is the Executive Editor of the said news channel and the petitioner no.4 is the anchor in the news channel. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that several FIRs have been registered against the petitioner nos.2 and 3 in order to muzzle up the media which is broadcasting the conduct and activities of the various officers of the State Government and he is eyesore of the higher officers of the State of Jharkhand. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. Relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. In W.P. (Cr.) No. 329 of 2005, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Sudha Devi vs. M.P. Narayanan reported in AIR 1988 SC 1381 wherein, the following has been observed in the relevant portion of the said judgment, by the coordinate Bench, which reads as under:- “Besides, affidavits are not included in the definition of ’evidence’ in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and can be used as evidence only, if for the sufficient reason court passes an order under O. XIX, Rule 1 or 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure”. 5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nitu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nitu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. that failure to pay rent may have civil consequences, but is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Wajid & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when it comes to quashing of the FIR or criminal proceeding, the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline the prayer to quash the criminal proceeding; as an accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still, if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls withing one of the parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manik Taneja & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 paragraph no.12 of which reads as under:- “12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of “criminal intimidation”. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the mind of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of the appellants posting a comment on Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.” it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation, the threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the person to cause that person to do or omit to do any work and mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm could not be sufficient to bring in the application of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code which corresponds to Section 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made by the petitioners in this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners criminally intimidated the informant repeatedly so the offence punishable under Section 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have committed forgery by creating a false agreement for sale hence, the offence punishable under Section 336(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is also made out. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have committed forgery by creating a false agreement for sale hence, the offence punishable under Section 336(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is also made out. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the allegations made against the petitioners are in four folds, the first is that the petitioners criminally intimidated the informant, the second is that the petitioners have committed forgery by creating a fabricated agreement for sale, the third is that the petitioners defaulted in payment of rent of the tenanted premises and the fourth is that the petitioners adduce false evidence by submitting an affidavit. 8. It is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neetu Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) that failure to pay rent is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code, the said ratio is squarely applicable to the provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that nonpayment of the rent of the tenanted premises do not constitute any offence punishable in law. 9. Now so far as the allegation of adducing false affidavit before the competent authority under the JBC Case No. 38 of 2017 is concerned, as has already been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Sudha Devi vs. M.P. Narayanan (supra) that affidavits are not included in the definition of evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and can be used as evidence only if for the sufficient reasons the court passes an order under Order XIX Rule 1 or 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no material to suggest that any Order XIX Rule 1 or 2 of Code of Civil Procedure was ever made. There is no specific detail as to what false statement has been made in the said affidavit. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no material to suggest that any Order XIX Rule 1 or 2 of Code of Civil Procedure was ever made. There is no specific detail as to what false statement has been made in the said affidavit. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still, the offence of adducing falls evidence by filing a false affidavit is not made out against the petitioners. 11. So far as the offence of criminal intimidation is concerned, the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were heard saying that they will not vacate the house of the informant but as already indicated above, the petitioners have in fact, being ousted and evicted from the said house in question. There is no allegation that the threat was with intention to cause alarm to the informant. It appears to be the expression of word without any intention to cause alarm. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is not made out. 12. So far as the offence of forgery of the document i.e. the agreement for sale is concerned, there is absolutely no reference to any agreement for sale executed by the petitioners in favour of the informant or anyone else on behalf of the informant. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the respondent no.2-informant is not in possession of any document which can be stated to be forged. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 336 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is not made out. 13. So far as the criminal antecedent of the petitioners are concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that mere filing of criminal cases against a person cannot take away the legitimate right of such person to say before the Court that FIR lodged against him do not makes out any offence against him. 13. So far as the criminal antecedent of the petitioners are concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that mere filing of criminal cases against a person cannot take away the legitimate right of such person to say before the Court that FIR lodged against him do not makes out any offence against him. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that registration of so many cases against the petitioners cannot be an impediment for quashing of the FIR; even when, if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still, none of the offences punishable in law is made out. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 511 of 2024 be quashed and set aside. 15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 511 of 2024 is quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.