REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL     NO. 759 of     2019  (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4820/2017)

VIKRAM JOHAR       ...APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.   ...RESPONDENT(S)  

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T ASHOK     BHUSHAN,J.

Leave granted.  

2. This  appeal  has  been  filed  challenging  the

judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 06.02.2017

by which judgment, the criminal revision filed by the

appellant was dismissed.  The criminal revision was

filed by the appellant challenging the order dated

29.11.2016  passed  by  the  Additional  Chief  Judicial

Magistrate rejecting his discharge application moved

under Section 239 read with Section 245 Cr.P.C. in a

complaint case No.483 of 2013 under Section 504 and

506 of I.P.C.

1

3. The brief facts of the case, which need to be

noted for deciding this appeal are:-

3.1 The  respondent  No.2  (hereinafter  referred

to as “complainant”), was a partner of M/s.

Ram  Company  engaged  in  business  of  wood

processing and sale. The company had its

premises  at  Kosikala,  District  Mathura,

Uttar Pradesh.  

3.2 On 18.12.2010 at 3.00 AM fire broke into

the  premises  of  M/s.  Ram  Company.   Fire

brigade  and  police  were  informed,  which

reached  on  the  spot  and  fire  could  be

controlled after several hours.  The cause

of fire was shown as electric short circuit

in electric cable.  Fire caused damages of

stocks, plant and machinery and building.

M/s. Ram Company had taken a Standard Fire

& Special Perils Policy from M/s. United

India Insurance Co. Ltd. M/s. Ram Company

had  submitted  insurance  claim  on

20.12.2010.  Total  claim  raised  by  the

2

company was  Rs.3,62,45,114/-.  The United

India  Insurance  Co.  Ltd.  (hereinafter

referred  to  as  “insurance  company”)

appointed  the  appellant  M/s.  Protocol

Surveyor and Engineers Private Limited, who

is  a  certified  surveyor  by  Insurance

Regulatory and Development Authority.  The

appellant being Director of M/s. Protocol

Surveyor  and  Engineers  Private  Limited

undertook survey of insurance claim of the

company.   

3.3 On  04.04.2011,  the  appellant  visited  the

premises at Kosikala, District Mathura for

the purposes of preparing a survey report.

Joint  Inspection  note  was  prepared  on

04.04.2011,  for  which  various  documents

were asked from the company.  After various

correspondences, the appellant submitted a

final  survey  report  dated  23.09.2011.

M/s.  Ram  Company  wrote  letter  dated

15.07.2011 and 22.07.2011 to the surveyor,

3

which was duly replied on 23.07.2011 by the

surveyor.   M/S.  Ram  Company  has  also

written  to  insurance  company,  which  was

replied by insurance company on 08.08.2011

informing M/s. Ram Company that surveyors

have  been  asked  to  submit  their  final

report at the earliest.   

3.4 On  11.09.2011,  the  M/s  Ram  company

submitted  a  letter  to  insurance  company

requesting to make payment of policy amount

of Rs. 285.60 Lacs.  In the said letter,

some complaints were also made against the

surveyor. Again on 19.09.2011, a letter was

sent by M/s. Ram Company to the insurance

company,  where  allegations  were  made

against the surveyor.  The surveyor, i.e.,

the  appellant  submitted  final  report  on

23.09.2011 with regard to claim of M/s. Ram

Company, in detail noticing all aspects of

the matter.  In the Survey Report in the

last paragraph, following was stated:-

4

“15) Underwriters Liability

In  view  of  the  above,  it  stands established that  

(a) The insured has mis represented their claim of building.

(b) The insured has mis represented their claim of Plant & Machinery.

(c) The  insured  had  made  false declaration  to  inflate  the  stock quantity.

(d) The  insured  had  made  false declaration  on  the  stock  value declaration.

This policy shall be voidable in the event  of  mis  representation,  mis description or non disclosure of any material particular.

If  the  claim  be  in  any  respect fraudulent,  or  if  any  false declaration  be  made  or  used  in support  thereof  if  any  fraudulent means  or  devices  are  used  by  the insured  or  any  one  acting  on  his behalf  to  obtain  any  benefit  under the policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the wilful act, or with the connivance of the insured, all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited.  

It is clear that the insured’s Mis representation  &  False  declaration

5

have breached both the above stated policy conditions.

In view of above, that the subject claim  is  not  admissible  under  the captioned policy of insurance.  

This  report  is  being  submitted without prejudice and is subject to the  terms  and  conditions  of  the policy of insurance.  

Signed  Protocol Surveyors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd.”

3.5 On  14.11.2011,  respondent  No.2,  i.e.,

complainant  filed  an  application  under

Section  156(3)  Cr.P.C.  alleging  offences

under Sections 383, 384, 471, 504 and 506

I.P.C.  In the complaint, allegation was

made  against  the  appellant  that  he

alongwith  two  or  three  other  unknown

persons,  one  of  whom  was  holding  a

revolver, came to the complainant’s house

on 02.10.2011 at 7.00 PM and abused him in

filthy language and was about to assault

him,  When some neighbours arrived there,

the  appellant  and  two  or  three  other

unknown  persons  fled  the  spot  on  their

6

vehicle.  On the above application dated

14.11.2011, on the order of the Magistrate,

first information report was lodged being

F.I.R. No.367 of 2011 under Sections 383,

384, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C. registered on

24.11.2011.  Insurance  company  by  letter

dated  12.12.2011  repudiated  the  claim  of

M/s. Ram Company.  Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and

5 of the said letter are to the following

effect:-

“3. That  during  the  course  of carrying out survey & assessment of this  claim,  the  overall  approach  & conduct of the surveyor was found to be satisfactory.

4. That  the  said  surveyors submitted  a  copy  of  their  Final Survey  report  No.2010-DEC-131  dated 23 September, 2011 to this office on 27 September, 2011.

5.  That  after  scrutiny  of  the submitted  survey  report  and  in consultation with the technical team of  our  Head  Office,  we  have repudiated  the  said  claim  vide  our letter ref.no. VKJ:RK:FC:2011: 235:11 dated 06.12.2011.”   

3.6 I.O.  conducted  the  investigation  calling

the appellant also and submitted a closure

7

report.  In the closure report, I.O. also

had stated that as per the call details and

location  of  Vikram  Singh’s  mobile

(appellant), there was no roaming of his

mobile from 1st October to 4th October and

his  location  was  within  the  NCR  area.

After recording the statements of several

persons,  the  I.O.  submitted  final  form,

closure  report.   Against  the  report,  a

protest  petition  was  filed  by  the

complainant before the Judicial Magistrate,

who by order dated 18.05.2012 allowed the

protest petition and directed for further

investigation in the Crime No. 448 of 2011.

Further investigation was also conducted by

another I.O., who again submitted a final

report  opining  that  no  offence  has  been

committed.  Again,  a  protest  petition  was

filed.  The  Judicial  Magistrate  by  Order

dated  21.12.2012  held  that  no  further

investigation is required and it shall be

justified to try and dispose of the case as

8

a complaint case.  Complainant’s statement

under  Section  200  Cr.P.C  was  recorded.

Complainant also got recorded statement of

PW1- Ganesh Sharma and PW2 – Roop Singh @

Munna.   

3.7 The  Magistrate  by  Order  dated  07.02.2014

summoned the appellant under Sections 504

and  506  I.P.C.   Against  the  order  dated

07.02.2014 an application under Section 482

Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant in the

Allahabad High Court, which application was

disposed  of  by  the  High  Court  by  order

dated  30.07.2014.   High  Court  while

disposing of the application under Section

482  Cr.P.C.  observed  that  in  case,  if

discharge  application  is  moved  by  the

applicant within 30 days, it is expected

that  the  same  shall  be  considered  and

decided by a reasoned and speaking order,

and  till  disposal  of  the  application  on

merit, no coercive action shall be taken

against the appellant.   

9

3.8 An application was filed by the applicant

under  Section  239  read  with  Section  245

Cr.P.C.  before  the  Court  of  Judicial

Magistrate  praying  that  appellant  be

discharged.   In  the  application  under

Sections  239  and  245,  details  of  claim,

various  reports  and  consideration  by

insurance  company  was  mentioned.

Additional  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  vide

its  order  dated  29.11.2016  rejected  the

application  for  discharge  against  which

Criminal  Revision  was  filed  in  the  High

Court,  which  has  been  dismissed  on

06.02.2017.   Aggrieved,  by  above  order,

this appeal has been filed.          

4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of

this  appeal  contends  that  complaint  filed  by  the

complainant was nothing but proceeding for harassment

of the appellant.  The appellant, who was surveyor

having given adverse reports regarding the fire claim

of the company, the complainant due to annoyance and

10

to  teach  a  lesson  to  the  appellant  has  filed  the

complaint. It is submitted that incident is alleged

of 02.10.2011 when appellant is claimed to be visited

his house and threatened him whereas the complaint in

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate was filed on

14.11.2011, i.e., about more than one month and 12

days,  which  itself  indicate  that  whole  story  was

concocted to harass the appellant.  It is submitted

that police after making thorough investigation twice

have found no offence committed and has submitted the

closure report.  It is submitted that ingredients of

offence under Sections 504 and 506 are not made out

on the reading of the complaints and Chief Judicial

Magistrate committed error in rejecting the discharge

application.  High Court also did not advert to the

allegations  of  the  complaint  and  failed  to  notice

that ingredients of offence under Sections 504 and

506 are not made out.  

5. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents

have  refuted  the  submissions  of  the  appellant  and

submits that there was sufficient material before the

Judicial Magistrate to issue process to summon the

11

appellant and there was no ground for discharging the

appellant from the offence.  The allegations in the

complaint makes out a case under Sections 504 and 506

and no error has been committed by learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate in rejecting the discharge

application  and  the  High  Court  in  dismissing  the

criminal revision.   

6. Learned counsel for the parties have also placed

reliance on various judgments of this Court, which

shall  be  referred  to  while  considering  the

submissions in detail.  

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

8. The  question  to  be  considered  and  answered  in

this appeal is as to whether in the present case,

appellant  was  entitled  to  be  discharged  from  the

offence under Sections 504 and 506 and whether Courts

below  committed  error  in  rejecting  the  discharge

application.  

12

9. We have noticed the facts and sequence of events,

which led to filing of the application under Section

156(3)  Cr.P.C.  by  the  complainant  against  the

appellant.    We,  in  the  present  case,  are  not

concerned  on  the  merits  of  the  claim  of  the

complainant  regarding  insurance  claim  of  the

complainant  pertaining  to  fire  incident  dated

18.12.2010.  Our consideration has to confine only to

the question as to whether the appellant has made out

a  case  for  discharge  under  Sections  504  and  506

I.P.C.  

10. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that

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.  

11. The  appellant  is  Director  of  M/s.  Protocol

Surveyor & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. at Sector-7, Noida,

Uttar  Pradesh.   Appellant  visited  the  premises  at

13

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  M/s.  Ram  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.   

12. We have noticed above that 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.   The  incident  alleged  against  the

appellant  is  dated  02.10.2011,  i.e.,  immediately

after submission of final survey report.  It was only

after final survey report submitted by the appellant

on 23.09.2011, which was received on 27.09.2011 that

14

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, copies of which is brought

as Annexure P-9.  The allegation in the complaint

against the appellant with regard to incident dated

02.10.2011 are as follows:-

“…………..When  the  complainant  did  not entertain  the  accused  Surveyor  Vikaram Johar,  he  and  2-3  other  unknown  persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, whom the complainant can identify, came to the complainant’s house on 2.10.2011 at 7.00 Pm and abused him in filthy language and about to  assault  him.   When  some  neighbour arrived there, the Surveyor Vikaram Johar, he and 2-3 other unknown persons fled the spot on their vehicle.  The people who had saved  the  complainant  has  seen  the occurrence.”

13. Twice the I.O. have conducted the investigation

and  submitted  a  closure  report,  on  which  protest

petition  was  filed.  On  the  protest  petition,

ultimately,  the  Judicial  Magistrate  by  Order  dated

21.12.2012 decided to treat the case as a complaint

case.  The  complainant  as  well  as  its  witnesses

15

appeared  in  the  witness  box  and  supported  the

incident dated 02.10.2011.   

14. Before we proceed to further examine the facts of

the present case, we may notice the ambit and scope

of power of the Court at the time of considering the

discharge application.  

15. This Court in  Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar

Samal  &  Another,  (1979)  3  SCC  4  had  occasion  to

consider  Section  227  Cr.P.C.,  which  is  Special

Judge’s  power  to  pass  order  of  discharge.   After

noticing Section 227 in paragraph No.7, this Court

held following:-

“7. XXXXXXXXXX

The  words  “not  sufficient  ground  for proceeding  against  the  accused”  clearly show  that  the  Judge  is  not  a  mere  post office to frame the charge at the behest of the  prosecution,  but  has  to  exercise  his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing  this  fact,  it  is  not  necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing  of  evidence  and  probabilities which  is  really  his  function  after  the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence

16

in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the  accused.  The  sufficiency  of  ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.”

16. After  considering  the  earlier  cases  of  this

Court, in paragraph No.10, following principles were

noticed:-

“10. Thus,  on  a  consideration  of  the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section  227  of  the  Code  has  the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence  for  the  limited  purpose  of finding  out  whether  or  not  a  prima facie  case  against  the  accused  has been made out.

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the  accused  which  has  not  been properly explained the Court will be fully  justified  in  framing  a  charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The  test  to  determine  a  prima  facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to  lay  down  a  rule  of  universal

17

application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to  some  suspicion  but  not  grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That  in  exercising  his  jurisdiction under  Section  227  of  the  Code  the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act  merely  as  a  Post  Office  or  a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the  case,  the  total  effect  of  the evidence  and  the  documents  produced before  the  Court,  any  basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”

17. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in  State of

Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, had

occasion to consider discharge under Section 227, it

was  held  by  the  court  that  Section  227  was

incorporated  in  the  Code  with  a  view  to  save  the

accused  from  prolonged  harassment  which  is  a

necessary concomitant of a protracted criminal trial.

It is calculated to eliminate harassment to accused

18

persons when the evidential materials gathered after

investigation  fall  short  of  minimum  legal

requirements.

18. Another judgment of this Court, which is to be

referred is Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287.  This

Court in the above case has noticed the potentiality

of misuse of Section 156(3) to harass those, who are

entrusted  with  various  statutory  functions.   This

Court,  in  fact,  has  made  observations  that

application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be

supported  by  an  affidavit  so  that  person  making

allegation  should  take  responsibility  of  what  they

have  said  in  the  complaint.   In  paragraph  No.30,

following has been held:-

“30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the  Magistrate.  That  apart,  in  an appropriate  case,  the  learned  Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and  also  can  verify  the  veracity  of  the allegations.  This  affidavit  can  make  the applicant  more  responsible.  We  are compelled  to  say  so  as  such  kind  of applications are being filed in a routine manner  without  taking  any  responsibility

19

whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who  are  passing  orders  under  a  statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.”

19. It  is,  thus,  clear  that  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.  It is true that in such

proceedings, the Court is not to hold the mini trial

by marshalling the evidence.  

20. After noticing the nature of jurisdiction to be

exercised by the Court at the time of discharge, we

now revert back to the facts of the present case,

where taking an allegation of complaint as correct on

the face of it, whether offences under Sections 504

and 506 is made out, is a question to be answered.

21. We need to notice Sections 503, 504 and 506 for

appreciating  the  issues,  which  has  come  up  for

consideration, which are to the following effect:-

20

“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.  

504.  Intentional  insult  with  intent  to provoke  breach  of  the  peace.—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.

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— 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

21

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  imprisonment  of  either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

22. Section 504 of I.P.C. came up for consideration

before this Court in  Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of

Maharashtra & Another, (2013) 14 SCC 44.  In the said

case, this Court had occasion to examine ingredients

of  Section  504,  which  need  to  be  present  before

proceeding to try a case.  The Court held that in the

said case, the order issuing process was challenged

by filing a criminal revision.  This Court held that

at  the  complaint  stage,  the  Magistrate  is  merely

concerned  with  the  allegations  made  out  in  the

complaint and has only to prima facie satisfy whether

there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the

accused.   In  paragraph  No.11,  following  principles

have been laid down:-

“11. We are, in this case, concerned only with  the  question  as  to  whether,  on  a reading  of  the  complaint,  a  prima  facie case  has  been  made  out  or  not  to  issue process  by  the  Magistrate.  The  law  as regards  issuance  of  process  in  criminal

22

cases  is  well  settled.  At  the  complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with  the  allegations  made  out  in  the complaint  and  has  only  to  prima  facie satisfy  whether  there  are  sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine prima facie  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the allegations  made  in  the  complaint.  The Magistrate is not expected to embark upon a detailed  discussion  of  the  merits  or demerits of the case, but only consider the inherent  probabilities  apparent  on  the statement made in the complaint. In Nagawwa v.  Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736, this Court held that once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion in forming an opinion that there is ground for proceeding, it is not for the Higher Courts to substitute its own discretion for that of  the  Magistrate.  The  Magistrate  has  to decide the question purely from the point of view of the complaint, without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.”

23. In paragraph No.13 of the judgment, this Court

has noticed the ingredients of Section 504, which are

to the following effect:-

“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

23

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.”

24. In  another  judgment,  i.e.,  Manik  Taneja  and

Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7

SCC 423, this Court has again occasion to examine the

ingredients of Sections 503 and 506.  In the above

case also, case was registered for the offence under

Sections 353 and 506 I.P.C.  After noticing Section

503, which defines criminal intimidation, this Court

laid down following in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12:-

“11. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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,

24

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.

12. In the instant case, the allegation is that  the  appellants  have  abused  the complainant  and  obstructed  the  second respondent  from  discharging  his  public duties  and  spoiled  the  integrity  of  the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes  within  the  meaning  of  “criminal intimidation”.  The  threat  must  be  with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any  work.  Mere  expression  of  any  words without any intention to cause alarm would not  be  sufficient  to  bring  in  the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention  is  to  cause  alarm  to  the complainant.  From  the  facts  and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the mind of the  second  respondent  causing  obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of the appellants  posting  a  comment  on  Facebook may  not  attract  ingredients  of  criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.”

25

25. In the above case, allegation was that appellant

had abused the complainant.  The Court held that the

mere fact that the allegation that accused had abused

the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of

Section 506.   

26. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the

complaint against the appellant.  The allegation is

that  appellant  with  two  or  three  other  unknown

persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to

the  complainant’s  house  and  abused  him  in  filthy

language and attempted to assault him and when some

neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other

persons accompanying him fled the spot.  The above

allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy

the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been

enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments.

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 mere allegation

that appellant came and abused the complainant does

not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in paragraph

26

No.13  of  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Fiona

Shrikhande (supra).   

27. Now,  reverting  back  to  Section  506,  which  is

offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid

down  by  Fiona  Shrikhande  (supra)  has  also  to  be

applied when question of finding out as to whether

the ingredients of offence are made or not.  Here,

the only allegation is that the appellant abused the

complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506

IPC, what are ingredients which have to be proved by

the  prosecution?  Ratanlal  &  Dhirajlal  on  Law  of

Crimes, 27th Edition with regard to proof of offence

states following: -

“…The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some

person. (ii) That  such  threat  consisted  of

some  injury  to  his  person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of some  one  in  whom  he  was interested;

(iii) That  he  did  so  with  intent  to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as

27

a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.”

A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint

does  not  satisfy  all  the  ingredients  as  noticed

above.  

28. On the principles as enumerated by this Court in

Fiona Shrikhande (supra) and Manik Taneja (supra), we

are satisfied that 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,  we  are  of  the  view  that  Courts  below

committed  error  in  rejecting  the  application  of

discharge filed by the appellant.  In the facts of

the present case, we are of the view that appellant

was entitled to be discharged for the offence under

Sections 504 and 506.  

29. Thus,  in  result,  the  appeal  is  allowed.   The

judgment of the High Court dated 06.02.2017 as well

as  the  order  of  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  dated

28

29.11.2016  are  set  aside  and  the  appellant  stands

discharged from the offence under Sections 504 and

506.         

......................J.                              ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

......................J.                              ( K.M. JOSEPH )

New Delhi,  April 26, 2019.        

29