'Intention To Prevent Apprehension' Is An Essential Ingredient To Constitute Offence Of Harbouring U/S 216 IPC: MP High Court

The word 'harbour' used in Section 216 of the IPC must be construed liberally. The person at whose instance harbouring is effected commits the offence, but mere giving of meal to those who are proclaimed offenders is not an offence within the meaning of Section 216 because in the absence of any evidence to that effect it cannot be held that the intention of the applicant / accused was to prevent the main accused from being apprehended. It must be shown that it was with an intention of preventing the harboured man from being apprehended.

Facts of the case were that the Applicant was accused of offenses punishable under Section 224, 120-B, 212 and 216 IPC for helping her husband, an accused under NDPS Act, to abscond from the legal custody and prevent his apprehension. Aggrieved, the Applicant moved an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking directions to quash the FIR registered against her and the further consequential proceedings.

The Applicant submitted before the Court that she was implicated only on the basis of the statement given by other co-accused under Section 27 Evidence Act. It was further submitted that the FIR registered against her was completely an abuse of process of law with the sole intent to harass her.

Per contra, the State submitted that there was ample evidence available on record, which directly connected the Applicant with the alleged crime. Therefore, no interference was warranted.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court opined that the story narrated by the Complainant in the FIR was highly inconceivable. Noting that whereas the Applicant was made accused on the basis of a statement given by the co-accused under Section 27 Evidence Act, the Court observed that since nothing was recovered from the possession of the said co-accused, his statement had no evidentiary value.

The Court laid down the ingredients to establish an offence under Section 216 IPC-

To establish an offence under Section 216 of the IPC, it must be shown first that, (i) there has been an order for the apprehension of a certain person as being guilty of an offence; (ii) knowledge by the accused party of that order; and (iii) that harbouring or concealing by the accused of the person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that the trial court had committed an error in framing charges against the Applicant-

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the present applicant is the wife of the main accused Banti @ Mahipal, but she neither met her husband directly nor helped him in any manner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, prosecution has failed to prove that the present applicant was harbouring the main accused with an intention to prevent the harboured person from being apprehended. Therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in framing charges against the present applicant for offence punishable under Section 216 and 120-B of the IPC.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court quashed the FIR registered against the Applicant and further proceedings consequential to it. Accordingly, the application was allowed.