Threats without intent to cause alarm do not constitute criminal intimidation; FIR quashed.

The complainant, owner of a shop let out in 1985 to Harshadkumar Prabhudas for carrying on an optical business under the name “Diamond Optical,” alleged that, during a dispute concerning possession and arrears of rent, the applicants and other accused had taken over or dealt with the shop and threatened him when he sought inquiries or requested transfer of the rent note.

The FIR, registered as C.R. No. I-75/2016 at A Division Police Station, Rajkot, alleged offences under Sections 409, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

The applicants sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that the dispute was essentially civil and that the allegations did not disclose criminal intimidation.

The complainant and the State opposed the applications, asserting conspiracy, threats, unlawful possession and the need for investigation.

During the proceedings, the application concerning original accused No. 4, Jagdish Lalji Solanki, abated upon production of his death certificate.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed the essential ingredients of criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506(2) of the IPC, particularly the intention to cause alarm to the complainant.

2. Whether the allegations were sufficient to justify continuation of proceedings under Sections 409, 504 and 114 of the IPC against the applicants, or whether the FIR and consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

It examined Section 503 IPC, under which criminal intimidation requires a threat of injury to a person, reputation or property, coupled with the intention to cause alarm or to compel or prevent a legally entitled act; Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for criminal intimidation, including the aggravated form under Section 506(2).

The Court also considered Sections 409, 504 and 114 IPC, but held that where the foundational allegations of criminal intimidation were not made out, continuation of the related allegations would serve no useful purpose in the circumstances of the case.

The Court found that the FIR contained only general assertions that threats and abusive words had been used in the context of the shop and rent dispute. It did not specify facts demonstrating that the alleged threats were intended to cause alarm, nor did it state that the complainant actually felt alarmed or was genuinely threatened.

The alleged conduct appeared connected with a dispute over possession, tenancy and rent, and the material relied upon by the complainant did not cure the absence of the essential ingredient of criminal intimidation at the FIR stage.

Since the principal allegation under Section 506(2) was not prima facie established, the Court considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings under Sections 409 and 114 IPC against the concerned applicants.

The Court therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent continuation of proceedings that did not disclose the alleged offences.

Rule was made absolute to that extent.

The proceedings in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7938 of 2016 had earlier abated qua petitioner No. 2, original accused No. 4 Jagdish Lalji Solanki, on account of his death.