(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed u/S.482 Of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the fir and complaint dated 10.01.2024 against petitioners No.1 To 5/Accused No.2 to 6 concerned in Ballari Women P.S. Crime No.7/2024 pending on the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court Ballari for the offences punishable u/S.498a, 323, 504, 506, 109 r/w/S 34 of IPC produced at Annexure-B and C Respectively in so far as petitioner is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity.)

Oral Order

1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in connection with crime No.7/2024 registered by Ballari Women Police Station, pending on the file of learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in the nutshell are as under:

4. The defacto complainant lodged the complaint on 10.01.2024, alleging that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 on 06.02.2019. After the marriage, their relationship was cordial for couple of days and thereafter accused Nos.1 to 6 started harassing her both physically and mentally, and used to assault her, abused her in filthy language and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. Thus, the defacto complainant lodged complaint. Therefore, the police registered the case for the aforesaid offences. Taking exceptions to the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 filed this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that respondent No.2 has filed a false case against the petitioners and it is purely a matrimonial case between the defacto complainant and accused No.1. It is contended that the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioners and the present criminal case has been initiated in order to cause undue harassment to the petitioners. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to allow the petition.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there is prima facie allegation against the petitioners and they are involved in the alleged offence. It is contended that petitioners abetted accused No.1 for commission of the offence. The material available on record clearly discloses the commission of offence. The veracity of allegation against the accused can be considered only after a full-fledged trial. At this juncture, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Hence, learned counsel for respondent No.2 prayed for rejection of the petition.

7. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 reiterated submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

8. On perusal of the material available on record, it clearly goes to show that the complaint was lodged on 10.01.2024 at 05.00 p.m. and the alleged offence took place on 03.01.2024 and 04.01.2024. It shows that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The complaint was lodged without offering any plausible explanations for such delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 at paragraph No.30 held as under:

          "30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained."

9. Admittedly, respondent No.2 made allegation that on the relevant date, time and place, the petitioners came to her house, took quarrel with her, abused her in filthy language and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. However, a perusal of the FIR and complaint, the same cannot make out ingredient of Sections 504 and 506 of IPC to establish that there was intentional insult to provoke breach of peace or criminal intimidations with the requisite intent.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharastra and Another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44 at paragraph Nos.13 and 14 held as under:

          ''13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.

          14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC.''

11. Further, respondent No.2 made allegation that on the relevant date and time, the petitioners intentionally insulted her so as to provoke a breach of peace. However, on perusal of the FIR and complaint, the Investigating Officer has also not stated any specific material discussing the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. Therefore, in the present case, the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are not made out.

12. 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, coupled with an intention 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 act which he is legally entitled to, as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

13. In case of Manik Taneja And Another v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2015) PART 7 SCC 423, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the ingredients of Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC.

          ''11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is 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."

          A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.''

14. From the foregoing proposition of law, it is clear that in order to constitute offence of criminal intimidation, there must be threat with intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to do any act which is not legally bound to do. Mere expression of any 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 within the definition of criminal intimidation. Therefore, in the instant case, even ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC are not made out against the petitioners.

15. In view of the forgoing discussesion, I am of the view that F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No.2 without any probable cause and with malafide intention. Further, the complaint is clearly civil in nature has been lodged in order to avoid the consequences arising out of the civil dispute. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

          i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

          ii) The entire proceedings connection with crime No.7/2024 registered by Ballari Women Police Station, pending on the file of learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed insofar as petitioners qua accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned.

          In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

          Note:- The observation made herein is only for the disposal of the present petition and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observation made herein.