IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 23.06.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Crl.O.P.No.29699 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 G.Selvaraj .. Petitioner vs
1. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District. Crime No.1388 of 2008
2. R.Mathivanan .. Respondents (2nd respondent impleaded as per order in Crl.M.P.No.4499 of 2017 dated 27.03.2017) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.314 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Myladuthurai, Nagapattinam District in Crime No.1388 of 2008 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Myladuthurai P.S., Nagapattinam District.
For Petitioner : Ms.L.Poompavai For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan (for R1) Additional Public Prosecutor R2 – No Appearance ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records in C.C.No.314 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Myladuthurai and to quash the same.
2. I heard Ms.L.Poompavai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and also perused the materials available on record. No representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.09.2008 at about 05.15 p.m., the accused met the defacto complainant (2nd respondent) and asked him as to why he had recovered Rs.1,260/- from his salary and the defacto complainant replied that in advance, the amount has been deducted from the salary. Immediately, the petitioner replied that the defacto complainant himself had misappropriated his amount and tried to pull his shirt and thereby prevented him from discharging his duties and also threatened defacto complainant with dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint, the 1st respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1388 of 2008 against the petitioner under Sections 353 and 506(i) of IPC. After completing the investigation and on examination of witnesses, the 1st respondent police filed final report under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(i) of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Myladuthurai and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence in C.C.No.314 of 2008.
4. According to the petitioner, he was working as Office Assistant at Panchayat Union Middle School, Sittamalli, Myladuthurai and there was a dispute between himself and the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Myladuthurai Panchayat Union towards disbursement of loan amount under the provident fund account, which resulted in filing writ petition against the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer. According to the petitioner, he had filed another writ petition against the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer and the same was allowed. Pursuant to the order passed in the said writ petition only, the defacto complainant passed an order dated 17.11.2006 granting loan under the provident fund. Since there was dispute regarding the deduction of amount from his salary towards provident fund as well as disbursement of loan under the provident fund, the petitioner had filed a civil suit against the defacto complainant. Taking revenge against the petitioner and as a counter blast, the defacto complainant had filed a false case against the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that after a thorough investigation only a case has been registered. All the witnesses examined have spoken to about the words said to have been used by the petitioner. Therefore, no interference required.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that in order to take revenge, the defacto complainant has falsely foisted the case against the petitioner and he never prevented the defacto complainant from discharging his duties and also threatened with dire consequences.
7. Prima facie, nothing has been produced by the prosecution to show that any assault was made on the defacto complainant or the petitioner used any criminal force on the defacto complainant in the execution of his duty.
8. In the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner pulled the shirt of the defacto complainant and also prevented him from discharging his official duty. The allegation in the FIR does not make out any actual commission of offence as the petitioner was also working in the defacto complainant's office, who was hesitant to grant loan under the provident fund despite the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.36801 of 2006, dated 29.09.2006.
9. Even assuming the petitioner had said something out of rage, it cannot be termed as a threat in the absence of any relevant materials. Nothing has been produced to show that the petitioner had come with any arms. The complaint is totally vague, bereft of any materials, particularly, attracting the provisions of Section 294(b) of IPC. The petitioner only made a mere oral threat. Though one or two witnesses have stated that the petitioner scolded the defacto complainant, there is no corroborative evidence to prove the same. Since the witnesses cited and examined by the 1st respondent police are subordinates to the defato complainant, naturally, they would support the defacto complainant only.
10. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC, the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. Mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm would not suffice. To constitute an offence under Section 506 of IPC, it must be shown that the person charged actually threatened another with injury to his person, reputation or property with an intention to cause alarm. Empty threats does not prima facie mean that the case under Section 506 of IPC is made out against the petitioner.
11. In the case on hand, except a vague and bald allegation of criminal intimidation, the defacto complainant has not stated that there was any threat to his life or sought for any police protection. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC not been made out.
12. As stated supra, nothing to show that in the execution of his duty, the petitioner prevented the defacto complainant from discharging his duty as public servant. Hence, on the face of records, no case is made out against the petitioner.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.314 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Myladuthurai shall stand quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.06.2017 vs Index : Yes To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Myladuthurai.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs Crl.O.P.No.29699 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 23.06.2017