The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a Forest Range Officer under Section 507 IPC (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication), finding that the allegations of a phone threat lacked ingredients for the offence and constituted an abuse of the process of law.
Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.404 of 2019.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APHC010002832020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396] (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 54/2020
Between:
P Govindaa Rajan
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the
proceedings against him in C.C.No.404 of 2019 on the file of the Court of
1 for short „Cr.P.C‟
2
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur for the offence punishable under Section 507 of Indian Penal Code,18602 .
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :
a. Respondent No.2/Complainant, being a reporter of Sakshi News Paper, published a news item as “ Atavi Bhoomula Aakramana” and contacted the Petitioner/Accused over phone for clarification about the said news item. On that, Petitioner/Accused, who was the-then Forest Range Officer revolted against the Complainant by abusing him as “Useless Fellow” and “Thikkanakodaka” and also threatened him with dire consequences.
b. As such, the Complainant lodged a complaint which was registered as a case in Crime No.154 of 2019 for the offence under Section 507 IPC read with 155(3) Cr.P.C.
c. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the Petitioner and the same was numbered as C.C.No.404 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur for the offence under Section 507 IPC. The same is sought to be quashed.
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case,
Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition on the following grounds:
a. In February, 2019 one Prakash, reporter of Sakshi Telugu Daily News Paper of Punganur approached the Petitioner demanding Rs.10,000/in their routine course, for which the Petitioner refused. The said reporter bore grudge against the Petitioner and instigated the
2 for short ‘IPC’
3
Complainant and made him to publish false news item under the caption “ Atavi Bhoomula Aakramana” , without verifying the facts and taking clarification from the Petitioner, who is responsible for Punganur Forest Range.
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1. Though notice was sent to Respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused in elaboration to what was
stated in the Petition, would submit that one Prakash, a Sakshi News Paper reporter approached the Petitioner demanding Rs.10,000/- for which he
4
refused. Then, the said reporter instigated the complainant and made him to publish a false news item to the effect that an extent of Ac.20.00 cents of forest land was encroached by Telugu Desam Party leaders. Without verifying the facts, the news item was published which is detrimental to the reputation of the Department. The present case was lodged against the Petitioner based on the false allegations. No prima facie allegations which would attract the alleged offence, were made out against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner, which attract the offence sunder Section 507 IPC. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner at this stage.
Point for determination
7. Now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.404 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur for the offence punishable under Section 507 of IPC?
Determination by the Court
8. A perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) t o give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to
5
secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present.
9. The decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Haryana
and others v. Bhajanlal and others3 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
3 AIR 1992 SC 604
6
cers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. ”
( emphasis supplied)
7
10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the Petitioner was the Forest Range Officer, Punganur Range, Chittoor District at the relevant time. It is alleged in the complaint that the Petitioner abused the Complainant over phone and threatened with dire consequences. At this juncture, for better understanding, it is apposite to extract Sections 503 and 507 IPC, which read 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.
507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication .—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section.”
11. In the instant case, except the allegation that the Petitioner threatened the Complainant over phone with dire consequences, there is nothing to show that the Petitioner threatened to cause an injury to the Complainant, his reputation, or his property and it would not disclose any intention to cause alarm to the Complainant.
8
12. Further, Section 507 IPC is a non-cognizable offence. As per Section 155 Cr.P.C, in case of a non-cognizable offence, Police have to direct the Complainant to file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate. Whereas, in the instant case, the S.I of Police himself sought permission of the Magistrate to register the case on the Police report for a non-cognizable offence.
13. The said allegation of threat leveled against the Petitioner also appears to be baseless. Based on the mere allegation of threatening without any substantial material, continuation of proceedings for the offence under Section 507 IPC would be an abuse of process of law and hence, the same are liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.404 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur for the offence punishable under Section 507 IPC.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date: 07.03.2024 L.R.Copy to be marked Dinesh
9
HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.P.No.54 of 2020
Dt.07.03.2024
L.R.Copy to be marked
Dinesh
10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI CRIMINAL PETITION No.54 of 2020
Between:
P GOVINDAA RAJAN, S/O. P.AILAIAH, AGE 59 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PUNGANOOR PUNGANOOR RANGE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 07.03.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
11
*** THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA**
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.54 of 2020
% 07.03.2024
Between:
P GOVINDAA RAJAN, S/O. P.AILAIAH, AGE 59 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PUNGANOOR PUNGANOOR RANGE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
^ Counsel for Respondents : Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi,
Assistant Public Prosecutor for R.1
AIR 1992 SC 604
This Court made the following:
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there are justifiable grounds for quashing proceedings under Section 507 IPC due to abuse of process of law?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. BhajanlalRelied on¶53
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
P Govindaa Rajan
The State of Andhra Pradesh
N Rasool
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
