1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO. 271 OF 2008 Mr. Bryan D'Silva, r/o. Opp. Govt. High School, Dona Paula, Ilhas-Goa. .... Petitioner V/s Mrs. Mary Nunes, r/o. H.No. 509, Dona Paula, Ilhas-Goa. .... Respondent Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 23 rd MARCH, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 is directed against order dated 9/09/2008 of the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji by which the learned Sessions Judge has upheld the order dated 12/01/2007 of the learned CJM issuing process against petitioner/accused under Sections 447,448 and 506 (ii) IPC. 2. The respondent/complainant and the petitioner/accused are neighbours and the said complainant owns plot 'A' while the accused owns plot 'B', on the Southern side of complainant's bungalow in Survey No.5 (part) of P.T. 2 Sheet no. 187. The complainant ordinarily resides at Abu Dhabi and it was her case that when she returned on 15/11/2005, she saw the building coming up in the said plot B without maintaining any setbacks and the accused had forcibly entered the bungalow by cutting lock of the main gate and had erected a scaffolding (bamboo sticks) and dumped other material used for construction into the complainant’s property. However, that incident is not a subject matter of the complaint, as rightly conceded on behalf of the complainant. 3. Thereafter, it appears that the complainant filed an application dated 13/02/2006 to the Police Inspector of Panjim town police station complaining about the illegal construction being done by the accused in which it was further alleged that the accused had constructed a dead wall next to her house with windows to the wall, without leaving 3 meters of space as per the existing rule. It is conceded on behalf of the complainant that this complaint had nothing to do with the complaint filed by the complainant which is of an incident of March, 2006, regarding which no date is mentioned but it is submitted on behalf of the complainant that before filing the said complaint, the complainant had filed a police complaint on 3/05/2006. 4. The allegation in this complaint dated 3/05/2006, filed to the police, was that the accused had forcibly entered the bungalow of the complainant 3 cutting the main gate lock and set up bamboo sticks and had started plastering the wall damaging the property from ground floor to second floor and when her power of attorney had informed her, they started to threaten him, saying that the accused would finish her and his family and she was called back to Goa. At this stage it may be mentioned that Counsel on behalf of the accused has submitted that at the relevant time, the complainant had one James Nunes as the power of attorney who had also filed a suit against the accused which has been subsequently withdrawn. In the said police complaint dated 3/05/2006, it was further alleged that when the complainant questioned the accused, the architect and his supervisor, Mr. Yogesh, both abused her with unmeaningful language and the accused and his workers threatened with bamboos and pebbles to beat them up. 5. Although, as already stated, the incident of the complaint was in March, 2006, the complainant without mentioning the date filed the complaint with the allegation that after about a month or so (i.e. after 15/11/2005) a neighbour Ermilinda Dias informed her at Abu Dhabi that the accused had cut the lock of her gate of her bungalow and once again the accused had erected the scaffolding and started doing the work of plastering the walls and when her neighbour called her, she took some photographs of the said scaffolding erected by the accused. Although, the allegation is that the photos were taken by the complainant, the fact remains that the 4 photographs were removed by one Sham Shet on 20/03/2006 and who was engaged by the said Ermilinda Dias. As the police had not taken any action on the said complaint dated 3/05/2006, the complainant filed the said complaint and, at the end of the complaint, it was further alleged that the accused threatened her with dire consequences for which also the accused was required to be punished. 6. The complainant examined herself and the said neighbour, as well, i.e. the said Maria Emelinda Colaco Dias, and, on the basis of the statement given by the aforesaid witnesses, the learned CJM proceeded to issue process against the accused. 7. The accused challenged the said order before the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, in dismissing the revision, filed by the accused, came to the conclusion that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant under Section 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code had sufficiently made out a case for the issuance of process, for offences punishable under Section 447, 448, 506(ii) IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also noted that the said Smt. Maria Emelinda, who was an eye witness was examined in support of the complaint and the material on record prima facie contained the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 447, 448, 506(ii) IPC. 5 8. Shri Diniz, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused submits that the averments of the complaint were not verified by the complainant in her statement on oath and relying upon the judgment of this Court dated 1/02/2007 in Criminal Revision Application No. 57/2006 in the case of Shri Querobino C. Dias V/s. Shri Vincent Rodricks, learned Counsel submitted that unless the averments in the complaint were verified by the complainant and the verification disclosed the ingredients of the offence, no process could have been issued against the accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that the essence of Section 442 is that for a person who commits criminal trespass, one has to enter into or remain in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property and, therefore, in the absence of any averments that the accused had entered into or remained into the house of complainant, there was no question of any process having been issued against the accused under Section 442/448 IPC. Learned Counsel further submits that the essence of criminal trespass as defined under Section 441 IPC is that whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy and person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains therewith intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an 6 offence, or having entered into or upon such property, whether before or after the coming into force of the Criminal Law Act, 1961 with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property fails to withdraw from such property or its possession or use, when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, duly served upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said to commit “criminal trespass”. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the complainant was at Abu Dhabi and all that the accused did was to put up a scaffolding to repair his own house which the accused was otherwise entitled to in terms of Article 2314 of the Civil Code in force in this State and which would have otherwise permitted the accused to carry out the repairs after obtaining permission from the civil Court. However, a civil suit was filed and the dispute between the parties was of civil nature and, therefore, no process could have been issued under Section 441/447 IPC. Learned Counsel further submits that an allegation such as that the complainant had threatened further dire consequences in relation to Section 506(ii) means nothing and at the most it could convey only a conclusion drawn by a person in respect of certain words uttered to him or to her and in the absence of such words being disclosed, no process could have been issued against the accused and in this context Shri Diniz has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in V.M. Sanghi and Anr. V/s. Rammorath Gourishankar Tiwari & Anr. (1988 (3) Crimes 319) wherein it was, inter alia, observed that a mere threat is not sufficient to 7 attract the charge of criminal intimidation and the threat should be given with intent to cause alarm to the person threatened and in case where the complainant does not say that he was alarmed, there was no cognizance of an offence under Section 506 IPC. 9. On the other hand, Shri Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the complainant, has come to the conclusion that there was ground to proceed against the accused under Sections for which process was issued and, as such, this Court may not exercise its extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) to set aside the said order. Learned Counsel relying on Kailash Verma V/s. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and Anr. (2005 (2) SCC 571) and State of Orissa and Anr. V/s. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005 (13) SCC 540) has submitted that the power under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and such power ought not to be utilized as a substitute for a second revision. The Apex Court referring to the case of V.C. Shukla V/s. State (1980 Supp SCC 92) has stated that ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397 (1) of the Code as it is prohibited under Section 397 (3) thereof. However, the High Court can entertain a 8 petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court or when mandatory provisions of law are not complied with and when the High Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court. 10. Learned Counsel further submits that the process was issued by the learned CJM which order has been upheld based on the documents, the averments in the complaint and the statement on oath of the complainant and his witness. It is the submission of Shri Nadkarni that while issuing process the statement on oath has necessarily to be read with averments in the complaint and when so read there was sufficient material before the trial Court to have issued process against the accused. Learned Counsel further submits that if at all there are any discrepancies in relation to the dates, the same would be relevant to be considered at the stage of trial and not otherwise at this stage and what is to be seen at this stage is whether on the material produced, the ingredients of the offences are disclosed or not and thus there is ground to proceed against the accused. 11. The relevant averments in respect of the incident of March, 2006 as regards criminal trespass can be seen from paras 8 & 9 of the complaint which are are follows; 9 “8. When the Complainant again visited Goa in March, 2006 she again was shocked to see that the Complainant had erected bamboos in the Complainant's property thereby trespassing into the Complainant's property. 9. The Accused herein has entered into the property in the possession of the Complainant with intent to intimidate, insult and annoy the Complainant who is in possession of such property. The Accused has committed criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in the building of the Complainant which is used as a human dwelling. The Accused therefore has committed offences under Sections 441 and 442 of the Indian Penal Code which are punishable under Section 447 and 448 respectively.” 12. As regards criminal intimidation they are in para 10 and the same are as follows; “10. The Complainant brought her grievances to the notice of the accused Mr. Bryan D'Silva, as to why he was erecting bamboos and dumping construction material in her property as a result of which the said Accused threatened the Complainant, abused her with unmeaningful language and he also threatened to beat up the Complainant with bamboo sticks and pebbles. The Accused has therefore committed offence under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ” 13. However, the complainant as regards the first aspect in her statement on oath stated that: “After about a month or so my neighbour by name Ermilinda Dias at Abu Dhabi informed me that accused has cut the lock of my gate of the bungalow and once again accused had erected scaffolding and started doing the work of plastering of the walls.” As regards second aspect, the complainant stated that: “The accused also threatened me with dire consequences”. 10 The complainant's said witness stated that: “I informed the complainant that someone has encroached outside bungalow by erecting a scaffolding and she came down to Goa in the month of March, 2006 and I accompanied her to meet accused, Brian D'Silva. Before PW1 could come down to Goa, she requested me to engage a photographer and take some photos of said alleged construction site. Accordingly, with the help of PW2 photographs were clicked of the said encroachment made by Brian D'Silva adjacent to the bungalow of PW1. When PW1 inquired with said Brian D'Silva as to the reason for having cut the locks of the gate and having erected scaffolding, he got annoyed and gave us threats of dire consequences.” 14. This Court in Shri Querobino C. Dias V/s. Shri Vincent Rodricks (supra) has stated that: 15. Process is issued on the basis of the statement on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation, if any, made under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code , for short). Here was a case where the process was issued only on the basis of the statement on oath of the complainant. The recording of the statement on oath of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code is not an empty formality. Commonly it is nick named as verification. To verify is to establish the truth. In other words, verification is done in order to ascertain as to what is pleaded by the complainant is true or not. It is with a view to separate chaff from the grain, as many a times complaints do contain unfounded allegations and it is the duty of the Court to ensure that what is stated in the complaint is also stated by the complainant on oath and it is only then that based on such statement that process can be issued. The corollary of this would be that unless offences are disclosed from the statement on oath, no process can be issued only based on averments in the complaint. The complainant is bound to make a statement on oath as to how the offence was committed and how the accused persons are responsible therefor. After the statement on oath is recorded, a Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto and find out what offence/s is made out, notwithstanding that the other party at that stage is unrepresented. (emphasis supplied). 11 15. Admittedly, neither the complainant nor her witness were present at the time of incident of March 2006, when scaffolding to plaster the wall of the house of the accused was erected. The incident regarding the allegation of breaking of lock appears to have taken place prior to 15/11/2005 which matter was settled between the parties in as much as the complainant did not prosecute the accused in the complaint filed for any offence of mischief. It is not the case of the complainant or for that matter her witness, the said Erleminda Dias, that either of them saw the accused or his labourers entering upon the property of the complainant and erecting the scaffolding against the wall of the accused with a view to repair the same. It is also not their case that they had seen the accused entering into or remaining in the house of the complainant, those being the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 442/448 IPC. Likewise, the complainant had also not stated in her statement on oath that the said scaffolding was erected by the accused upon entering into her property. The only statement made by the complainant in her verification is that “once again accused had erected scaffolding and started doing the work of plastering of the walls”. Such a bare statement was insufficient to disclose the ingredients of Sections 441/447 IPC. Likewise, a bare statement of the complainant that “the accused also threatened me with dire consequences” was not sufficient to constitute the ingredients of Section 503/506 IPC, either first or second part and, as rightly pointed out on behalf 12 of the accused, the said statement is nothing but an inference of facts drawn by the complainant without disclosing the actual words used by the accused and, such a statement would not again be sufficient to disclose the ingredients of the said offence under Section 503/506 IPC. The essence of Section 503/506 is that the complainant must be able to show that the person charged actually threatened the person with 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. It was necessary for the complainant to have disclosed the actual words used by the accused so as to disclose whether the necessary ingredients of the said offence were made out by the complainant. Time and again, the Apex Court has brought to the notice of the trial Courts that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order of the Magistrate should reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto and the Magistrate is required to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record before process can be issued against the accused. In the case of Shri Querobino C. Dias V/s. Shri Vincent Rodricks (supra) this Court had occasion to reiterate that: “Revisional or inherent powers for quashing the proceedings at the initial stage can be exercised only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken at their face value or accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie 13 disclose the commission of an offence or where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence relied in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused or the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of which no prudent person could have reached a just conclusion that there were sufficient grounds in proceeding against the accused or where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any provisions of the Code or any other statute to the institution and continuance of the criminal proceedings or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly actuated with mala fide and has been initiated maliciously with the ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 16. Considering the statement on oath made by the complainant, the same does not at all show the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused and, in such a situation, the learned Magistrate was not right in issuing process against the accused, in as much as, the learned Sessions Judge was also not right in concluding that the evidence on record, prima facie, disclosed the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 447, 448, 506 (ii) IPC. It will be sheer waste of the time of the Court to proceed with such a complainat. 17. That being the position, this petition deserves to succeed. The orders of both the Courts below are hereby set aside and the complaint is hereby dismissed and, considering the facts, with no order as to costs. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-