Criminal Intimidation | Mere Expression Of Words Without Intention Insufficient To Attract Section 506 IPC: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to make him to do or omit to do any act, is not sufficient to bring the act of the accused within the definition of criminal intimidation, as prescribed under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. A Single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T thus quashed a trial...
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to make him to do or omit to do any act, is not sufficient to bring the act of the accused within the definition of criminal intimidation, as prescribed under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
A Single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T thus quashed a trial court order taking cognizanceof the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal, 1860 against the accused.
The petitioner argued that the complainant filed a false case against him on a purely civil dispute. It was submitted that the proceedings were an offshoot of a civil suit where petitioner had obtained a favourable injunction.
It was further argued that a perusal of the entire charge-sheet shows that the alleged offences are not made out.
Firstly, the bench noted that the alleged incident took place on May 12, 2020 but the FIR was lodged only on May 22, without offering any possible explanation. It also rejected the allegation of the complainant that on the relevant date, time and place, the petitioners trespassed to his house. It said,
“On perusal of the material available on record, in Original Suit No.32 of 2018, the learned Magistrate, Devadurga, granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners and therefore, by virtue of the order, they entered the premises and therefore, at this juncture, prima-facie, there is no merit in the contention of the complainant that the petitioners have trespassed into his house. Thus, the term 'house tress-pass' as defined under Section 442 of the IPC, which is punishable under Section 448 of the IPC is not attracted.”
In regards to the allegation of criminal intimidation the court said noted that petitioner allegedly lifted hoe (guddali) and threw it on the ground. Referring to Section 506, the court said,
“On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that in order to satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of injury to person, reputation or property of the complainant by the accused, which should be with an intention to cause alarm to that person or cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat.”
Relying on Apex court judgment in the case of Manik Taneja And Another v. State Of Karnataka and Another (2015), the bench held, “In the instant case, even ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC are not made out against the petitioners.”
Accordingly, it allowed the petition.
Case Title: Sugurappa @ Sugurayya Swami v. The State Of Karnataka
Case NO: Criminal Petition No.201248 of 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
Date of Order: 03-08-2023
Appearance: Advocate R. S. Lagali for Petitioners.
HCGP Sharanabasappa M Patil FOR R-1.
Advocate Santosh H Patil for R2.