THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2670 OF 2009 Dated 1-12-2011 Between: B. Thimmappa. ..Petitioner. And: The State of Andra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2670 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.163 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganiur in so far as the petitioner is concerned Petitioner herein is A.2 and the second respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The facts of the case, in brief, is follows: The second respondent lodged a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yemmiganur Town Police Station on 25-2-2007 alleging that at his request and on payment of necessary charges, surveyor came to survey the land belonging to his mother in S.No.444/A1 of an extent of Ac.0-28 cents in S.B.I. colony, Yemmiganur. The land stands in the name of his mother. A survey was conducted on 12-2-2007 and the boundaries were fixed in the presence of one Venkateswar Reddy, the councilor. Seven days thereafter, one Boya Karete Giddaiah who is the son of Boya Narasappa (A.1) removed the boundary stones fixed by the surveyor. The petitioner herein who is an advocate has informed the defacto complainant over phone that he cannot file a case against his client. Police completed investigation and laid charge sheet. In the charge sheet also, the allegations made against the Second petitioner is that he on behalf of A.1 rang up the defacto complainant and threatened him not to file police case against A.1. Thus, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he informed the defacto complainant over phone that he cannot file a case against his client.(A.1). It appears that as far as the petitioner herein is concerned, there was stay and therefore, the trial proceeded against A.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of the judgment in C.C.No.163 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur showing that A.1 was found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 447 of I.P.C. and was acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reading of the complaint or the Charge sheet allegations, no case is made out against the petitioner since the ingredients of Section 503 I.P.C. are not attracted. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner being an advocate has threatened the defacto complainant and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed against the petitioner. The only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C. have been made out or not. Section 506 I.P.C. deals with punishment for criminal intimidation and Section 503 I.P.C. deals with definition of criminal intimidation which reads follows: “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.” Even if the allegations made against the petitioner are accepted to be true, they only reveal that he has asked the defacto complainant to omit to do an act of lodging the complaint against his client (A1). Now whether mere asking a person omit to do an act which that person is legally entitled to do, attracts the criminal intimidation is a short question that false for consideration. The above definition makes it clear that whoever threats another with an injury to the person or reputation or property. That means threatening should be to cause injury to the person or to his reputation or to his property. Even threatening may be to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. This includes a threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested and it should be with an intention to cause alarm to that person. Thus, the threatening should cause alarm to that person. Unless these ingredients are made out, it cannot be said that Section 503 I.P.C. is attracted. Admittedly, in this case, there is no allegation of causing any injury to the defacto complainant or to his property or to his reputation or to any person or to the reputation of any person in whom, the defacto complainant is interested and the allegations do not show that the threatening is with an intention to cause alarm to the defacto complainant. Therefore, it is clear that ingredients under Section 503 are not made out. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to misuse of the process. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the impugned order. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 1-12-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2670 OF 2009 Dated 1-12-2011