Allowed

T.Jayasree v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Dec 2023CRLP/1136/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition challenged the charge sheet for offences under Sections 506 and 503 IPC arising from a dispute between a headmaster and a teacher. The court held that the ingredients of criminal intimidation were not satisfied due to lack of intention to cause alarm. Additionally, the significant delay in lodging the police report, unexplained beyond maternity leave, warranted quashing of t

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1036 of 2019 filed before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru are quashed.

T.Jayasree Vs State of Ap — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1136 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The I Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari

¶4

District laid a charge sheet in Crime No.271 of 2014 for the offence under Section 506 IPC on the report lodged by the 2^nd respondent herein with an allegation that on 23.10.2014 while the 2^nd respondent discharging her duties as teacher there is some quarrel in between the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner herein, who is the headmaster of the school, regarding the marriage of the 2^nd respondent herein and the said incident was taken place prior to 16.12.2014 and the same was assailed in the present quash petition.

¶5

The sum and substance of the charge sheet is that

¶6

the de-facto complainant married L.W.2, who belong to the schedule caste, who was not agreed by the accused for which the de-facto complainant and L.W.2 residing separately. In this connection, on 11.12.2014 L.W.1 asked A.2 to attend the class for which a petty dispute was arisen in the leisure period between L.W.1 and A.2, after completion of school, staff meeting was held in school at 4:30 pm, during that meeting once again L.W.1 and A.2 were quarreled each other and argued regarding their house and family matters. While, in this juncture, A.2

¶7

¶8

warned and threatened L.W.1 with dire consequences. Basing on the above said allegations, the police have laid the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC against the petitioner herein. The same was assailed in the present Criminal Petition, on the grounds that the ingredients of the Section 506 is not applicable to the present facts of the case and as per the 161 Cr.P.C statements, the incident took place on 23.10.2010 and there is no proper explanation on the part of the de-facto complainant about delay in lodging the report to the police and hence prayed to quash the proceedings.

¶9

Refuting the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/de-facto complainant vehemently contended that the delay was occurred due to the maternity leave of the 2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant and this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction or entertain the petition for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to thwart the proceedings in pre-emptive stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶10

In this regard, it is necessitated to extract the relevant provision 503 IPC Criminal Intimidation:

¶11

“ 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

¶12

¶13

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 intim-idation.

¶14

Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section”.

¶15

A reading of the definition of Criminal Intimidation, it

¶16

indicates that there must be threatening or causing an injury, reputation or property of the person threatened and the said threat must be with intention, to do an act, which is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act.

¶17

As per the complaint given by the 2^nd

¶18

respondent/de-facto complainant, the petitioner herein slapped the 2^nd respondent, who is the de-facto complainant, on 23.10.2010, hence she had made a complaint to the police on 16.12.2014.

¶19

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment Hashmukhlal D Vora v. State Of Tamilnadu reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1732 held that

¶20

"While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint."

¶21

¶22

And another Supreme Court judgment in Manik Taneja v.

¶23

State of Karnataka reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 held that

¶24

"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 petitioner. 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 minds of the second respondent/de-facto complainant."

¶25

As such, the ingredients of Section 503 is not applicable to the present facts of the case.

¶26

In the present case, the 2nd respondent/de-facto

¶27

complainant has slapped the petitioner/accused alleged to be slapped on 23.10.2010 and she made a complaint to the police on 16.12.2014. There is a lapse of 4 years the explanation is submitted by the petitioner is that, she is in maternity leave for a period of 13.06.2014 to 09.10.2014. The incident took place on 23.10.2010 and a report was lodged to the police on 16.12.2014 there is a delay of 4 years almost, explanation offered is that she was in maternity leave. The altercation took place on 11.12.2014 regarding discharging of duties in the school. The 2^nd respondent has kept in mind the earlier incident, now lodged report to the police, which act as in discharge of duties in the school. As there are no ingredients of Section 503 of IPC and there is also delay

¶28

¶29

in lodging the report to the police. Hence, it appears that the present charge-sheet is an abuse process of law.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the present C.C.No.596 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru was transferred to the Special Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class (Mobile) Court, Eluru, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1036 of 2019.

¶31