Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Anil Manohar Walke, filed a private complaint against Nandkishor Vishwanath Raut (since deceased) and Pramod Uttamrao Tidke (respondent) alleging that on 10.3.2006, while the applicant was summoned to give statement and produce documents in an enquiry before the Director of Vocational Education and Training, Mumbai, the respondent threatened him not to depose or submit documents. The applicant lodged a complaint with the police, but no cognizance was taken, leading him to file Criminal Complaint Case No.218 of 2006 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati. The Magistrate, after verification and evidence, issued process under Sections 294 and 506 IPC. After recording evidence before charge, the Magistrate framed charge under Section 506 IPC against the respondent by order dated 5.3.2009. The respondent filed Criminal Revision No.109 of 2009 before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, who quashed the charge by order dated 19.6.2010, holding that the threat was not to cause death or grievous hurt and thus did not constitute criminal intimidation. The applicant then filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the revisional order. The High Court allowed the application, holding that the Sessions Judge erred in quashing the charge. The court noted that the threat to cause injury to reputation or property falls within the definition of criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC, and there was sufficient prima facie material to frame charge. The revisional order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Threat to Witness - The applicant-complainant alleged that the respondent threatened him not to depose or submit documents in a departmental enquiry. The trial Magistrate framed charge under Section 506 IPC. The Sessions Judge quashed the charge holding that the threat was not to cause death or grievous hurt. The High Court held that the threat to cause injury to reputation or property also falls within the ambit of criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC, and a prima facie case was made out. The revisional order was set aside and the charge restored. (Paras 1-6) B) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Quashing of Charge - The High Court observed that the Sessions Judge exceeded his revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence at the stage of charge. The order framing charge was based on prima facie material and could not be interfered with lightly. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in quashing the charge framed under Section 506 IPC against the respondent on the ground that the threat was not to cause death or grievous hurt, and whether a prima facie case for criminal intimidation was made out.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19.6.2010 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No.109 of 2009, and restored the order framing charge under Section 506 IPC against the respondent. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Criminal intimidation
- Section 506 IPC
- threat to witness
- quashing of charge
- revisional jurisdiction
- prima facie case
