MEWA LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-140
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 15,2013

MEWA LAL Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The applicant, by way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the charge sheet as well as the summoning order dated 01.08.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ram Nagar, District Nainital, in criminal case no. 463 of 2008 captioned as State vs. Mewa Lal, under Section 506 IPC.
(2.) A first information report was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the applicant on 14.12.2007 in PS Ram Nagar, alleging that on 13.12.2007, at 2:45 p.m. the applicant came to the chamber of respondent no. 2 and threatened the respondent that he (applicant) will kill him (respondent no. 2). Applicant was a Lecturer of Geography in M.P. Hindu Inter College, Ram Nagar and respondent no. 2 was the Principal of the selfsame college. After the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 506 IPC. Cognizance was taken on the said charge sheet and the accused applicant was summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the said order, present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved.
(3.) Assuming that the facts contained in the first information report are hundred percent correct, did it make out an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC The first information report simply said that the applicant, a lecturer of Geography came to the chamber of the Principal and said that he (lecturer) will kill him (respondent no. 2). Whether the offence under Section 506 IPC is prima facie made out or not, the complainant-respondent no. 2 is required to show the following things: (a) the applicant threatened the complainant; (b) with any injury to the complainant, his reputation or property; (c) or to the complainant or reputation, anyone in whom the complainant is interested; (d) with intent to cause alarm to the complainant or that person; (e) or to cause the complainant to do any act which he was not legally bound to do; (f) or to omit to do any act which the complainant was legally entitled to do; (g) as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.