Usha v. Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.01.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P. No.16124 of 2023 & Crl.M.P. Nos.10148 and 10149 of 2023 Usha Petitioner v State represented by The Inspector of Police E-2, Royapettah Police Station Mylapore Chennai (Cr. No.563/2012) Mohamed Baig Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in C.C. No.193 of 2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.XVIII, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same. For petitioner Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz For R1 Mr. A. Gopinath Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 Mr. A. Saravanan

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been preferred by A.3 seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No.193 of 2018 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

Heard Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.3, Mr. A. Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent/State and Mr. A. Saravanan, learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant.

The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de facto complainant got acquaintance with A.1 and he introduced A.2 who was dealing with old cars. A sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was received from the de facto complainant on the assurance of getting a Toyota Innova car. However, A.1 and A.2 are said to have given only a Maruti Ritz car to the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the said car was also seized by the police in the course of investigation in some other case. At that point of time, it came to light that the de facto complainant was cheated. The de facto complainant was repeatedly requesting A.1 and A.2 to repay him the sum of Rs.3 lakhs that was collected from him. Since it was not repaid to him, the mother of A.2, who is A.3/petitioner herein, assured the de facto complainant that the money will be repaid in instalments.

The de facto complainant was following up with the petitioner and the petitioner started threatening the de facto complainant stating that she will close the complaint by using her influence with the higher officials.

respondent, an FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.563 of 2012 and on completion of investigation, a final report came to be filed before the Court below, which was taken on file in C.C. No.193 of 2018. The Court below has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 506(II) IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

The only allegation that has been made against the petitioner/A.3 is that she assured repayment of the amount to the de facto complainant and subsequently, she threatened the de facto complainant. Hence, the Court below went through the statement that was recorded from the de facto complainant.

Even if the allegations that have been made in the statement are taken as they are, no offence has been made out under Section 506(II) IPC against the petitioner. It is now a settled law that empty threats, by themselves, do not make out an offence of criminal intimidation, unless there is evidence to show that the threats are real ones. In the instant case, except the ipse dixit of the de facto complainant, there is absolutely no material to substantiate the offence of criminal intimidation. Useful reference could be made to the judgment of the

Apex Court in Vikram Johar v The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1 in this regard.

In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the clear view that continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner/A.3 will result in abuse of process of law, which requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C. No.193 of 2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.XVIII, Saidapet, Chennai, is quashed insofar as the petitioner/A.3 is concerned. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and there shall be a direction to the Court below to proceed with the case as against A.1 and A.2 and complete the proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected Crl.M.Ps. stand closed. 23.01.2024 cad N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

cad 2019 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 295

To The Inspector of Police E-2, Royapettah Police Station Mylapore Chennai (Cr. No.563/2012) The Metropolitan Magistrate No.XVIII Saidapet Chennai The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai 600 104 23.01.2024