Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Theivam vs The State on 15 July, 2025
1
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No.27738/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-11-2024
in CRLOP(MD) No. 8699/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Madras at Madurai]
THEIVAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 155247/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP & IA
No. 155248/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 15-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. A Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P Saravanan, Adv.
Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Exemption Application is allowed.
3. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the
Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 29-11-2024 by which
the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case
No.12/2021 pending on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Usilampatti arising from the First Information Report
No.235/2019
Signature Not Verified
registered with Police Station Elumalai, District
Madurai dated 30-8-2019 for the offence punishable under Sections
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2025.07.18
18:14:24 IST
Reason:
294(b) and 506(ii) respectively of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, “IPC”)
2
4. The FIR lodged by the petitioner – herein reads thus:-
“Today, 30/08/2019 night at 08.00 Hours, I. V. Murugan, Sub-
Inspector of Police, while I was on duty, received post, I saw
petition No. 297/19 placed for my attention and registered
Elumali Police Station Cr. No. 235/2019 u/s 294 (b), 506 (ii)
IPC, details of the complaint given by the complainant is as
R. Thievam, age 23, S/o. (late) Rajapandi,
Kodanginaickenpatti, Thadaiyampatti Post, Peraiyur taluk.
Madurai District, 7639598809. To: The Inspector of Police,
Elumali Police Station, Sir, I am residing at the above
address. As my father was not well in the year 2017, I
admitted him in Madurai Mission Hospital situated at
Mattuthavani, Madurai for treatment. My father passed away as
treatment did not yield result. I filed a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) in WP (M.P) NO: 17264/17 before the Madurai
Bench of the Hon’ble Chennai High Court against the Thanjavur
Meenakshi Mission Hospital Management as the hospital is
without sufficient facility. The case filed by me has been
dismissed. In this situation, on 06.06.2019 morning at around
11.00 am, when I and my uncle Chandran were at home, Pradeepa,
D/o. Dr. Sethuraman and Ramesh, S/o. Dr. Sethuraman came in a
black car bearing No. 10 and approached me and told that they
will pay all expenses for filing appeal and further they told
that they would give money to me also. For that I told them
that I cannot file any appeal and herein after you don’t not
come to disturb me. For that they threatened me, saying, if I
don’t do what they say, they would kill me here itself and
bury. A person named Ramesh came to beat me with an iron rod
which he was holding. I stepped aside. Pradeepa who came along
with him spoke with bad words “hi you son of a whore”. I was
scared of my life and screamed, “Oh, Mom, save me!”. On
hearing this, the neighbours gathered. The above-mentioned
individuals fled in the car they came. Hence, I request you,
Inspector of Police to take appropriate action against them
and give protection to my life and property. Further, I humbly
request you to take action who illegally came to my house and
gave life threat to me. Thanking you, Yours faithfully,
Sd/….R. Theivam, Date: 24.07.2019. Sir, Issued CSR No.
281/2019. Receipt on 27.07.2019 at 12.40 Hours. Sd/…….
Thinkaran, INS. Sir, perused and enquired the CSR No. 281/19.
Registered a case in Elumalai PS Cr. No. 235/19 u/s 294(b),506
(II) on 30.08.2019 at 20.00
Hours.Sd/ V. Murugan, SI 30.08.19. Elumalai PS.
13. Action taken: Since above report reveals Commission of
Offence(s) u/s as mentioned in Item No. 2, registered case and
took up for investigation
FIR read over to complainant/Informant, admitted to be
correctly recorded and a copy given to the Complaint /
Informant free of cost.”
5. It appears that on completion of the investigation, the
investigating agency thought fit to file charge-sheet for the
offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC. The filing of charge-
3
sheet culminated in Criminal Case No.8699/2024.
6. Heard Mr. A. Sirajudeen, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
7. The High Court in our opinion has rightly observed that the
plain reading of the FIR fails to disclose commission of any
cognizable offence, more particularly, the offence of criminal
intimidation. For something which happened on 06.06.2019 at the
house of the first informant, the FIR came to be lodged after a
period of more than two months on 30.08.2019. Be that as it may, we
may not lay much emphasis on the delay on the part of the first
informant in getting the FIR registered for alleged offence.
8. Time and again, this Court has explained what constitutes an
offence of a criminal intimidation punishable with Section 506 of
the IPC. We once again explain what would constitute an offence
punishable under Section 506(ii) of the IPC.
9. Section 506 reads as under:
“S. 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;
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 fine, or with both.”
10. The essential ingredients – The offence of criminal
intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC and Section 506
IPC provides punishment for it. Section 503 reads as under:
“503. Criminal intimidation.—
Whoever threatens another 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 do, as
the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits
criminal intimidation.
Explanation.— A threat to injure the reputation of any
4deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested,
is within this section.”
11. An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:
1.Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii)to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested.
2.The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat; or
(iii)to cause that person to omit to do any act which
that person is legally entitled to do as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat.
12. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear that a part
of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of
criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an
accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere
threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm
to the complainant, but with a view to coerce the complainant to do
something as alleged in the FIR, even if believed to be true, would
not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. In the entire
FIR, there is no whisper of any allegation that the threats which
were administered actually caused any alarm to the first informant
and he felt actually threatened.
13. We see no good reason to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the High Court.
14. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[ad_1]
Source link