Vikram Johar vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

504 and 506, IPC by the appellant in an incident that allegedly took place on 02.10.2011 – Insurance claim repudiated by the Insurance Company – Twice the concerned IOs submitted closure report, whereafter protest petitions were filed by respondent no.2 – Eventually, Judicial Magistrate holding that no further investigation was required directed that the matter be tried as complaint case – Application for discharge filed by the appellant – Rejected– Revision before the High Court– Dismissed– On appeal, held: Appellant’s role was only of a surveyor appointed by insurance company to survey and submit report on the fire insurance claim alleged by the respondent no.2 – Various correspondences were made by respondent no.2 with the appellant and the insurance company – In the letter dated 11.09.2011, addressed to insurance company, there was no allegation made against the appellant – For the first time in letter dated 19.09.2011, allegation was made that the appellant asked money for the final survey report – It was only after final survey report was submitted by the appellant on 23.09.2011, that the incident dated 02.10.2011 was alleged in which appellant was alleged to have threatened the respondent no.2 – Application u/s.156(3), Cr.P.C. was filed on 14.11.2011 – While considering the discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether case for trial has been made out or not – Allegation in the present case that the appellant had abused the complainant when taken on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of ss.504 and 506 – Intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence – Judgment of the High Court and the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate set aside – Appellant stands discharged from the offence u/ss.504 and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 156(3), 239 and 245.

Penal Code, 1860– s.506 – Offence of criminal intimidation – Ingredients to be proved – Discussed.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 239 and 245 – Discharge application under – Power of Court – Scope – Held: While considering the discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether case for trial has been made out or not – In such proceedings, the Court is not to hold the mini trial by marshalling the evidence.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Appellant’s role was only of a surveyor appointed by insurance company to survey and submit report on the fire insurance claim alleged by the complainant with regard to incident dated 18.12.2010, which took place in his factory premises at Kosikala, District Mathura. [Para 10] [9-G]

1.2 The appellant visited the premises at Kosikala and held joint inspection on 04.04.2011. Various correspondences were made by the complainant with the appellant as well as insurance company. In the letter dated 11.09.2011, which was addressed to insurance company, there was no allegation made against the appellant and for the first time in letter dated 19.09.2011 sent by the Company, allegation was made against the appellant that appellant has asked for money for the final survey report, which was submitted by the appellant on 23.09.2011, which was received by insurance company on 27.09.2011. In the final survey report recommendation has been made to repudiate the claim due to misrepresentation and false declaration made by the appellant, which is breach of policy condition. It was only after final survey report submitted by the appellant on 23.09.2011, which was received on 27.09.2011 that the appellant alleged the incident dated 02.10.2011, in which appellant has alleged to have threatened the complainant. It is to be noted that application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed for the first time on 14.11.2011. [Paras 11, 12] [9-H; 10-A-D]

1.3 Twice the I.O. conducted the investigation and submitted a closure report, on which protest petition was filed. On the protest petition, ultimately, the Judicial Magistrate decided to treat the case as a complaint case. While considering the discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. In such proceedings, the Court is not to hold the mini trial by marshalling the evidence. [Paras 13 and 19] [10-G-H; 13-D]

1.4 The allegation in the complaint against the appellant taken on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections

504 and 506, IPC. 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. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. Ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 are not made out from the complaint filed by the complainant. When the complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which has been treated as a complaint case, does not contain ingredients of Sections 504 and 506, Courts below committed error in rejecting the application of discharge filed by the appellant. The judgment of the High Court dated 06.02.2017 as well as the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 29.11.2016 are set aside and the appellant stands discharged from the offence under Sections 504 and 506. [Paras 26-28] [17-B-D; 18-A-B] Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another (1979) 3 SCC 4 : [1979] 2 SCR 229 ; State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 460 ; Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2015) 6 SCC 287 ; Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra & Another (2013) 14 SCC 44 : [2013] 9 SCR 240 ; Manik

Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another (2015) 7 SCC 423 : [2015] 1 SCR 156 – relied on. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes 27th Edition – referred to.