Vague Allegations of Abuses and Delayed Filing Without Intent to Cause Alarm Fail to Constitute Criminal Intimidation.

The applicants sought to quash an FIR registered under Sections 504, 506(2), 507, and 114 of the IPC

The complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that Applicant No. 1, her husband’s ex-fiancée, was living with her husband in a live-in relationship and had called her on November 30, 2020, threatening her with "dire consequences" unless she granted a divorce

Applicant No. 2 (brother of Applicant No. 1) allegedly issued similar threats

The applicants contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure for an earlier FIR filed by Applicant No. 1 against the complainant for cyber-defamation and that the criminal complaint was a malicious attempt to involve them in a matrimonial dispute

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the applicants

2. Whether the criminal proceeding was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, warranting quashment under Section 482 of the CrPC

The court primarily applied the guidelines established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which allow the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of law, specifically where allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or maliciously instituted

It relied on Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2024) and Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023) to define the ingredients of Sections 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation), noting that mere abuse or threats without the specific intent to cause alarm or provoke a breach of peace do not constitute these offences

The court found that the FIR was lodged after a significant delay of five months from the alleged incident without a plausible explanation

Regarding the charge under Section 504 IPC, the court noted that the FIR failed to state the specific words used, making it impossible to determine if they constituted an "intentional insult"

Investigation revealed that out of five phone numbers mentioned, four did not belong to the applicants, and the call from the applicant’s number followed the complainant's creation of a WhatsApp group used to harass the applicants

The court reasoned that the ingredients for criminal intimidation under Section 506 were not satisfied because there was no established "intent to cause alarm"

Consequently, the court determined that the case fell under the Bhajan Lal criteria for quashing, as the allegations were concocted and lacked a legal basis

The Court allowed the application and quashed FIR No. 11203008210032/2021 registered with Bilkha Police Station, Junagadh, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom