V M ANGHI Vs. RAMMORATH GOURISHANKAR TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who have been the recipients of processes calling upon them to face an accusation for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 341, 504 and 506 nw. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have come forth with this petition to quash the same.

(2.) RESPONDENT 1 who is a watchman of the Mani Mahal premises owned by a Cooperative Society complains that the Petitioners are in occupation of the ground floor of Mani Mahal Building. The premises are owned by Mrs. Ben D. Patel. Petitioner No. 2 is the father of Petitioner No. 1 and the latter is the Managing Director of a Private Limited company doing business in the name and style of M/s. Sanghi Motors (Bombay) Ltd. In May 1983, the Petitioners appropriated some portion of the vacant space in the Mani Mahal building. This open space was used by them to put up a garden and later they cordoned off the area. This was done without the permission of the general body of the Society and when the complainant who is a watchman, pointed out this, the Petitioners gave him threats and abuses. As a result of this, they had committed offences and deserved to be dealt with as required by law. After the presentation of the complaint, a preliminary statement of RESPONDENT No. 1 was recorded and this is what he had to say: On 9.9.1987 at 11.00 a.m. I was on watchman duty in Mani Mahal, Mathew Road, Opera House, Bombay - 4. I am a watchman for the building. There are two gates, one gate is for Sanghi Motors and one gate for the building. Sanghi Motors had put on chains in the courtyard for preparing garden but it was space for parking. There was space for 3 parking of cars. Sanghi Motors started fixing poles. . I went to Anil Bajaj and M.P. Chhabria and informed that about fixing of poles. They told me that it will not be done without the consent of the society. The accused No. 1 when informed abused me. They asked me to go away from the spot as the spot belongs to them. Sanghi Motors are not allowing any members of the society to park their cars in front Sanghi Motors. They threatened me that I will be driven out from service.T I may here point out that Sanghi Motors and a division of the said company has been prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under sections 447 and 341 IPC by the Manager of the Mani Mahal Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Complainant in the instant case has come forth in his capacity as a watchman. Now, the preliminary statement which has been reproduced verbatim does not make out any offence and that is precisely what Mr. Kotwal submits. Learned counsel for respondent I counters this argument by referring to the recitals appearing in the complaint. The recitals appearing in the complaint have to be discarded as the studied effort of one conversant with the law. As against them, the preliminary statement is a reflection of what really transpired. If there be any contradiction between the two, it is the preliminary statement which has to be preferred. The Magistrate does not seem to have addressed himself to ascertaining the discrepancy between the recitals in the complaint and the preliminary statement. Had be been a bit more careful, he would have seen that the preliminary statement does not make out a case of any sort requiring the issuance of process against the petitioners. Section 341 speaks of wrongful restraint and there is nothing in the preliminary statement to show that the complainant was restrained from proceeding in any direction he had a right to proceed Counsel for respondent 1 refers to the complainant saying in para 2 that he was asked by the accused to go away from the spot as the spot belonged to them. From this it can be inferred that the complainant must have gone for meeting the petitioners right inside the premises of Sanghi Motors. Naturally, petitioners had a right to say that the said premises belonged to them and the complainant had no right to stay there against their wishes. Section 504 IPC deals with the offence of intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace. Complainant speaks of abuses directed at him by the petitioners. But he does not say that the abuses constituted insults and that the insults were of such a nature as to provoke a breach of peace or make him commit any offence. Section 506 IPC relates to punishment for criminal intimidation. That offence consist of threatening another with injury to his person, reputation or property. A threat to affect anothers living may amount to criminal intimidation. But here that offence can not be said to have been made out, for the complainant was not an employee of the petitioners. Next, a mere threat is not sufficient to attract the charge of criminal intimidation. The threat should be given with intent to cause alarm to the person threatened. Here, the complainant does not say that he was alarmed. Therefore, no offence requiring the Magistrate to take cognizance has been made out and the petition will have to be allowed. It is so allowed and the complaint dismissed. Rule made absolute.