Case Title: Sugurappa @ Sugurayya Swami v. The State Of Karnataka
Case NO: Criminal Petition No.201248 of 2021
Date of Order: 03-08-2023
INTRODUCTION
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that just speaking certain words without the aim of alarming the complainant or influencing them to take specific actions is inadequate to classify the accused person’s actions as criminal intimidation under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
FACTS
the petitioner argued that the complainant filed a false case against him based on a purely civil dispute. The petitioner claimed that the proceedings stemmed from a civil suit in which they had obtained a favorable injunction. They further contended that a careful examination of the entire charge-sheet revealed that the alleged offenses were not actually established.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
Firstly, the court observed that the alleged incident occurred on May 12, 2020, but the First Information Report (FIR) was filed on May 22, 2020, without any explanation provided for the delay. The court dismissed the complainant’s claim that the accused trespassed into their house on the specified date, time, and location. The court’s analysis of the evidence showed that the accused had been granted temporary relief by a magistrate in a prior case, allowing them entry into the property. Thus, the court found no initial validity in the complainant’s assertion of house trespass, as defined in Section 442 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is punishable under Section 448 of the IPC.
Regarding the allegation of criminal intimidation, the court addressed the petitioner’s action of lifting and throwing a hoe (guddali) to the ground. The court referred to Section 506 of the IPC, which outlines the criteria for criminal intimidation. It stated that for an act to qualify as criminal intimidation, the accused must threaten to harm the complainant’s person, reputation, or property with the intention of causing fear or coercing the person into performing an action they are not legally obliged to do, or refraining from a legal obligation to avoid the threatened harm.
Citing a precedent from the Supreme Court case of Manik Taneja And Another v. State Of Karnataka and Another (2015), the court held that even the elements required by Section 506 of the IPC were not established against the petitioners in the present case.
In light of these considerations, the court granted the petition.
