THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6112 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.237 of 2007 on the file of the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad. The petitioners are A1 and A5 in that C.C.No.237 of 2007 filed by the respondent-complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 415 and 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The brief facts of the case as per the complaint are as follows: The respondent-complainant and A1 got married on 7.4.2002 at Balanagar, Hyderabad as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the complainant’s parents gave Rs.70,000/- to A1 towards pasupu kumkuma, Rs.5,000/- to A1’s three sisters towards ‘adapaduchu lanchanams’ apart from giving gold ornaments and other household articles worth Rs.30,000/-. Thereafter, all the Accused started harassing the complainant physically and mentally subjecting her to utmost cruelty and finally demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and also threatened her with dire consequences unless the demand was met. As the complainant did not bring the additional dowry, she was ultimately necked out from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, at the instance of elders and A5 (mediator, who bought the alliance), the complainant and A1 agreed to apply for mutual consent divorce and filed petition before the Family Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 16.4.2003 and the petition was returned with some office objections which A1 did not comply nor he intimated about it to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed O.P.No.766 of 2003 before the Court seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion incorporating the factum of seeking for the mutual consent divorce therein and after hearing the matter, divorce was granted on 6.10.2004. Thereafter also A1 and his family members abused the complainant and her family members in filthy language and warned them with dire consequences. The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad took cognizance of the case only for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 to A5 as follows: The learned Magistrate found that there was no prima facie case to proceed with the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 415 and 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC which is fatal. Moreover, divorce took place between A1 and the complainant about (7) years back and ever since, they have been living separately and thereafter A1 got married to another girl and was blessed with two children, and neither himself nor his family members got any reason to threaten the complainant and her family members and it is quite unnatural that A2 who is aged more than 80 years involved in threatening the complainant, which is sufficient to hold that a false case was foisted against A1 to A5. Further, admittedly A3 and A4, sister and brother of A1 who are already married have been living separately at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, but in spite of that, false case was foisted against them and hence it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. It is also his contention that the allegations do not attract the provisions of Section 506 IPC, since to attract those provisions, there should be material to the effect that A1 to A5 intended to cause harm to the complainant as alleged with a view to prevent the complainant from doing a particular act, which ingredients are absent here. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision in INDER PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF H.P.[1], in which similar observations were made under similar circumstances. It is reported that A2 was no more and therefore the case against her was abated following her death and ultimately the petition is to be examined so far as A1, A3 to A5 are concerned. Section 503 defines Criminal intimidation as; “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.” Section 506, which deals with Punishment for criminal intimidation, reads; 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 cause an offence punishable with death or1[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 line, or with both. Therefore, it has to be seen as to how far the ingredients of Section 503/506 IPC are applicable here. The overall circumstances of the case infer that though long back divorce between A1 and the complainant was affected in view of the pendency of maintenance case between them and also in order to prevent the complainant from proceeding with that case, A1 to A5 involved in threatening the complainant and her parents at the house of her parents on 15.10.2006. However, prima facie, it is quite unnatural and hence not believable that A2 aged more than 80 years involved in going to the house of the parents of the complainant and threatened them with dire consequences. It is also quite unnatural that A5 an elder who got no relation with the parties admittedly, also went to the house of the complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. The plea that A2 and A5 along with A1, A3 and A4 went to the house of parents of the complainant and threatened them with dire consequences has to be held to be unnatural, it makes it very clear that false allegations were made by the complainant deliberately either wholly or in part. In the circumstances, it appears that it is quite unnatural that A3 to A5 also went to the Family Court as they were not parties in the maintenance case and from there they went to the house of the parents of the complainant. Leaving that apart, it appears that there is incriminating material against A1 and accordingly the matter has to be disposed of. In the result, the petition is allowed insofar as A3 to A5 are concerned, and dismissed insofar as A1 is concerned, whereas the case against A2 stood abated in view of her death. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 30.9.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.A.No.1547 of 2007 .8.2011 [1] 2003 (1) Crimes 345