[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2758 OF 2008 Dr.Suryanath Kheduram Dubey ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Dinesh Tiwari advocate for Applicant Ms.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking quashing of FIR relating to CR No. 253 of 2008 of Powai Police station, Mumbai. The said FIR is under sections 323, 504,506-II of IPC. 3. The learned advocate for the applicant states that only offence under Section 506-II of IPC is cognizable and other offences are non-cognizable. The learned advocate for the applicant further [-2-] states that there is no material to show that any case is made out under Section 506-II of IPC. I have perused the FIR. In the FIR, it is specifically stated by the complainant that the accused person pointed out revolver at him and stated that "Abhi Mei Tere Ko Thokata Hu, Abhi Dikhata Hu". 4. The learned advocate for the applicant has stated that alleged threat by petitioner cannot fall under Section 506-II of IPC as the said threat is not capable of giving rise to any cause for alarm. In support of his contention he placed reliance on para 21 of the decision in the case of Rajendra Chandrakant Dhuru Vs. State of Mah. and Rajendra Chandrakant Dhuru Vs. State of Mah. and Rajendra Chandrakant Dhuru Vs. State of Mah. and Ors. Ors. Ors. In paragraph 21, it is observed that every threat cannot be a cause for offence under section 506-II of IPC or even part (I) to prosecute a person and for taking cognizance of such allegations, the allegations should make out a case that threat by accused had really given cause for alarm to the complainant as contemplated under Section 503 of IPC. In the said case, it was observed that in so far as offence was concerned, no ingredients of Section 503 of IPC are present in [-3-] the complaint hence, prosecution came to be quashed under Section 506-II of IPC in that case. However, in the present case, ingredients of Sections 503 and Section 506-II of IPC are clearly made out in the FIR. 5. Section 506 reads as under: 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation,-- 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation,-- 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation,-- 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, If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.- etc.- 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 or 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, or [-4-] with both". 6. Looking to the act of the applicant in pointing out the revolver at the complainant and uttering the above mentioned words, it is clear that threat was given by the applicant to cause death or grievous hurt to the complainant. 7. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that section 506 of IPC deals with criminal intimidation and section 503 of IPC defines what is the criminal intimidation. He stated that in the present case there was no criminal intimidation by the applicant to the complainant. As far as section 503 of IPC is concerned, it states that whoever threatens any person 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 dos, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. In the present case, the act of the [-5-] applicant in pointing out a revolver and uttering the above mentioned words clearly show that he threatened the complainant with grievous injury to his person with intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Thus, it is seen that case is clearly made out under Section 506 of IPC, hence, no case is made out for quashing of FIR. 8. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]