Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings for lack of intent: Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 April 2019)

Case Background

The case revolves around a fire incident at the premises of M/s. Ram Company, a wood processing and sale business, on 18 December 2010. The fire caused significant damage, leading the company to file an insurance claim of Rs. 3,62,45,114 with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The insurance company appointed M/s. Protocol Surveyor and Engineers Private Limited, with the appellant, Vikram Johar, as its director, to survey the claim.

Mr. Johar visited the premises on 4 April 2011 for inspection and requested various documents from the company. After several correspondences, he submitted a final survey report on 23 September 2011, which concluded that the company had misrepresented their claims and made false declarations, thus breaching policy conditions. Consequently, the insurance company repudiated the claim on 12 December 2011.

Following the submission of the report, the complainant alleged that on 2 October 2011, Mr. Johar, along with two or three unknown persons, came to his house, abused him, and threatened him. This led to the filing of a criminal complaint under Sections 383, 384, 471, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The police conducted two investigations, submitting closure reports both times, stating no offense was committed. The complainant then filed a protest petition against the closure reports. The Judicial Magistrate, after considering the protest petition, decided to treat the case as a complaint case. The complainant and his witnesses recorded their statements. Subsequently, the Magistrate summoned the appellant under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.).

The appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the Allahabad High Court, which was disposed of with directions to consider a discharge application. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the discharge application filed under Section 239 read with Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed against the rejection of the discharge application.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 503, I.P.C.: Defines criminal intimidation as threatening another with injury to their person, reputation, or property, with the intent to cause alarm or compel them to do something they are not legally bound to do or omit something they are legally entitled to do.

  “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.”

• Section 504, I.P.C.: Deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. It states that whoever intentionally insults someone, knowing that such provocation is likely to cause them to break the public peace or commit another offense, shall be punished.

  “Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

• Section 506, I.P.C.: Prescribes the punishment for criminal intimidation. It specifies that whoever commits criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment or fine, or both. The punishment is more severe if the threat involves causing death, grievous hurt, or destruction of property by fire.

  “Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.— And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprison ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the complaint was filed to harass him due to the adverse survey report he submitted.
• The incident was alleged to have occurred on 2 October 2011, but the complaint was filed on 14 November 2011, indicating that the story was fabricated.
• Police investigations twice concluded that no offense was committed.
• The allegations in the complaint do not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of the I.P.C.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents contended that there was sufficient material for the Judicial Magistrate to summon the appellant.
• The allegations in the complaint make out a case under Sections 504 and 506 of the I.P.C.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to be discharged from the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another, (1979) 3 SCC 4* to emphasize that a judge must exercise judicial discretion and not act as a mere post office while considering a discharge application.
• The Court referred to State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568* to highlight that Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was incorporated to save the accused from prolonged harassment.
• The Court cited Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287* to underscore the need for responsibility when filing applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to prevent misuse.
• The Court applied the principles laid down in Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2013) 14 SCC 44* to determine that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 504 I.P.C. as there was no evidence of intentional insult that could provoke a breach of peace.
• The Court used Manik Taneja and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 423* to conclude that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C. as there was no intention to cause alarm.
• The Court also relied on Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes* to explain the ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C. and to conclude that the prosecution had not proved the necessary elements.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence to support the charges under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint did not meet the necessary legal ingredients for these offenses. The court also considered the circumstances surrounding the complaint, including the timing of the complaint after the submission of the adverse survey report and the fact that the police investigations had twice concluded that no offense was committed.

The court was also concerned about the potential for misuse of criminal proceedings to harass individuals, especially those performing statutory functions. The court highlighted the need for a responsible approach when filing complaints under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Intent is Crucial: For offenses under Sections 504 and 506 of the I.P.C., mere allegations of abuse or threat are not sufficient. There must be a clear intention to cause alarm, provoke a breach of peace, or compel someone to do something they are not legally bound to do.
• Discharge Application: Courts must exercise judicial discretion when considering discharge applications and not act as mere post offices.
• Misuse of Criminal Proceedings: The judgment highlights the potential for misuse of criminal proceedings to harass individuals, especially those performing statutory functions.
• Responsibility in Filing Complaints: Individuals filing complaints under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. must do so responsibly and with due diligence.
• Importance of Evidence: The judgment emphasizes the importance of having sufficient evidence to support criminal charges.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere allegations of abuse or threat do not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. There must be a clear intention to cause alarm, provoke a breach of peace, or compel someone to do something they are not legally bound to do. This judgment reinforces the importance of intent in cases of criminal intimidation and intentional insult and reiterates the need for courts to exercise judicial discretion when considering discharge applications. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies the application of the existing law to the facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The court held that the allegations in the complaint did not satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court emphasized the need for intent in these offenses and the importance of exercising judicial discretion when considering discharge applications. The appellant was discharged from the offenses.