9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1518 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition being filed even before the completion of the investigation - posting of comments on a public forum like the Facebook page of the Bengaluru Traffic Police constitutes an offense under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - HELD THAT - The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. Where in the opinion of the Court the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue the Court may quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR Under Section 353 Indian Penal Code is concerned it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook of the traffic police the conviction under that Section could be maintainable. The essential ingredients of the offence Under Section 353 Indian Penal Code are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record it appears that no force was used by the Appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the Appellants either assaulted the Respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second Respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations that the ingredients of the offence Under Section 353 Indian Penal Code are not made out. In the instant case the allegation is that the Appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second Respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second Respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of Criminal intimidation . The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work - From the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that there was no intention on the part of the Appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second Respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of Appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 Indian Penal Code. The Appellants might have posted the comment online under the bona fide belief that it was within the permissible limits. Even going by the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are satisfied. In the facts and circumstances of the case it would be unjust to allow the process of the court to be continued against the Appellants and consequently the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside. Conclusion - i) The essential ingredients of offenses under Sections 353 and 506 IPC were not satisfied by the appellants actions. ii) In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the Court quashed the FIR and proceedings as they did not disclose any cognizable offense and amounted to an abuse of process. The impugned order of the High Court in Criminal Petition is set aside and this appeal is allowed and the FIR registered against the Appellants is quashed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Posting of Comments on Facebook and Offense Under Section 353 IPC Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 353 IPC deals with assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty. The essential ingredients include an assault or use of criminal force with the intent to prevent or deter a public servant from discharging their duty. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined whether the appellants' actions met the criteria for an offense under Section 353 IPC. It noted that the provision requires the use of criminal force or assault, which was not evident in the appellants' actions of posting comments on Facebook. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found no evidence of the appellants using force or assaulting the police inspector. The comments on Facebook did not constitute criminal force. Application of Law to Facts: The Court concluded that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 353 IPC, as no force or assault was used by the appellants. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the comments obstructed public duty, but the Court found no basis for this claim under the legal definition of the offense. Conclusions: The Court determined that the offense under Section 353 IPC was not made out. 2. Posting of Comments on Facebook and Offense Under Section 506 IPC Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 506 IPC pertains to criminal intimidation, which involves threatening another with injury to person, reputation, or property with intent to cause alarm. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court analyzed whether the appellants' comments constituted a threat with intent to cause alarm, as required by Section 506 IPC. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found no evidence of intent to cause alarm or any threatening behavior by the appellants. The comments were made on a public forum intended for public grievances. Application of Law to Facts: The Court noted that the comments did not meet the criteria for criminal intimidation, as there was no intent to cause alarm or compel any action. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents claimed the comments were derogatory and affected the complainant's reputation, but the Court found no intent to threaten or cause alarm. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the offense under Section 506 IPC was not established. 3. Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings Under Section 482 CrPC Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 482 CrPC grants the Court inherent power to quash FIRs and proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court considered whether the continuation of proceedings would serve any useful purpose or whether it would be an abuse of process. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the FIR did not disclose any offense under the cited sections, and the continuation of proceedings would be unjust. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles of quashing proceedings, noting that the allegations did not prima facie establish any offense. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued for the continuation of proceedings, but the Court found no justification for this, given the lack of evidence of any offense. Conclusions: The Court decided to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings against the appellants. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court made the following significant holdings:
Verbatim Quote: "The power of quashing an FIR and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the courts. Indeed, the High Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the first information report and criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in various judgments..." The final determination was to set aside the High Court's order and quash the FIR against the appellants, thereby allowing the appeal.
|
