Appeal
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 471 of 2018.
Facts
2. FIR No. 839 of 2016 was registered at Sector 49 Noida, Police Station against the appellant, his parents and relatives on 4.9.2016 alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 363, 384, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet was subsequently filed on 22.8.2017 in respect of commission of offences under Sections 323, 384 and 406 I.P.C. Thereafter the accused, including the appellant herein, filed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of the FIR and the consequently filed chargesheet and the summoning order dated 19.09.2017 issued thereafter. As per the 2 impugned order, the High Court declined to exercise the power under Section 482 CrPC and consequently dismissed the petition qua the appellant.
Chargesheet does not contain necessary ingredients for the offence informed
4. As noticed hereinbefore, after the investigation, chargesheet was filed in respect of offences under Sections 323, 384 and 406 of the I.P.C. The first respondent has also filed counter affidavit. We have carefully gone through the materials on record. Having gone through the chargesheet, and the other material on record, we could not find necessary ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 323, 384 and 406 of the I.P.C. qua the appellant.
High court must have exercised power under section 482 cr.p.c against the bald accusation
7. As the High Court did not endeavour to consider whether 5 the chargesheet submitted showed prima facie case under Sections 323, 384 and 406, IPC for voluntarily causing hurt, for extortion and for criminal breach of trust, we think it inevitable to undertake such a consideration as in the facts and circumstances while called upon to exercise the power under Section 482, CrPC the High Court was legally bound to see if allegations/accusations constitute any offence or not. As relates the alleged commission of offence under Section 323, IPC besides the bald statement of the second respondent complainant ‘when I asked those people about my daughter, they beat up me’ no other material whatsoever is on record. In short, there is no material on record to support the alleged causation of hurt. Though the first respondent filed a counter affidavit nothing is stated / produced in regard to the said alleged offence.
Bald statement against the accused that ‘they beat me up’ without supporting material does not cover section 323 ipc
9. As noted earlier, except the statement that ‘they beat up me’ by the complainant no material whatsoever is available on record in regard to the commission of the said offence. The incident allegedly occurred on 12.06.2016. In the recorded statement of the second respondent-complainant or in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent there is not even a whisper that after the incident she went to a doctor or underwent any kind of treatment. Needless to say, that there is no statement – at least that injury report was prepared. In this context, it is also to be seen in respect of the incident, the FIR got registered only on 04.09.2016, that too much after the filing of petition No. 13/2016 by the appellant herein. Above all, as noted earlier, basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 323, IPC is lacking in the chargesheet.
Section 384 ipc ingredients not found in the charge sheet
10. As relates the alleged commission of offence under Section 384, IPC there can be no doubt that to attract the said offence the following twin ingredients are to be satisfied:
(i) Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another;
(ii) Dishonestly inducing the person so put to deliver to any person any property or valuable security.
In the absence of such ingredients/accusations in the chargesheet to constitute the said offence it cannot be said a prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 384 is made out therein.
Section 406 ipc ingredients not found in the charge sheet
11. Now, we will consider the accusation of commission of offence under Section 406, IPC. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 406, IPC are as follows:
(i) Entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property;
(ii) the person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation –
(i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharge, or;
(ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust
In the absence of basic ingredient of entrustment of property and dishonest usage or disposal of any such property to satisfy the offence punishable under Section 406, IPC in the present case, the charge of commission of the offence thereunder also cannot be attracted
Case quashed. Appeal allowed.
Parties
ABHISHEK SAXENA Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3628 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1431/2020) – NOVEMBER 28, 2023 – 2023 INSC 1088
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/1996/1996_2020_14_40_48588_Judgement_28-Nov-2023.pdf
Abhishek saxena vs. The state of U.P – 1996_2020_14_40_48588_Judgement_28-Nov-2023
Further study
Supreme court explains procedure to compound the offence under section 324 IPC
