Would a comment under the Facebook page of Bangalore police be construed as “Criminal intimidation” and whether such a complaint could be quashed at a preliminary stage? A division bench of the Supreme Court decides-

Date of Judgement: 20 January, 2015

Composition of the Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi pronounced the judgment of the division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.

Facts in brief: The appellant in the instant case met with an accident with an auto rickshaw on 13.06.2013 

One of the passengers, who was travelling by the auto, namely Mrs. Laxmi Ganapati, sustained injuries and she was duly admitted in the Santosh Hospital for treatment. 

The appellant is said to have paid all the hospital expenses of the injured and the matter is said to have been amicably settled between the injured and the appellants and no FIR was lodged.

The Constable, who was present at the time of incident, directed the appellants to meet Mr. Kasim, the Police Inspector of Pulakeshi Nagar Traffic Police Station, Bangalore City.

The appellants allege that as soon as they entered the office of Mr. Kasim, he behaved in a rude manner. Further, Mr. Kasim summoned the appellant to produce her driving licence and other documents. 

As at that time no FIR was lodged, the appellant No. 2 questioned the Police Inspector as to why she was being asked to produce those documents. Mr. Kasim, in reply, is alleged to have threatened the appellant by saying that he would drag her to court if she continued to argue and she was also thrown out of his office.

On the orders of Mr. Kasim, his deputy told the appellants that they are booking them on the charge of rash and negligent driving.

Being aggrieved with the manner with which they were treated, the appellants posted comments on the Bangalore Traffic Police Facebook page, accusing Mr. Kasim of his misbehaviour and also forwarded an email complaining about the harassment meted out to them at the hands of the Respondent Police Inspector. 

The Respondent (Police Inspector) filed a complaint regarding the posting of the comment on Facebook by the appellants.

Subsequently, an FIR was registered against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 IPC on 14.06.2013.

The appellants filed Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated against them on the ground that the complaint is an afterthought. 

The High court dismissed the petition stating that the petition was filed at a premature stage. 

The appellants by this special leave seeked to assail the correctness of the HC’s Order.

Issue/Question of Law: Whether a complaint can be quashed under s. 482 CrPC when the petition is filed at a premature stage.

Whether posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police would fall under the ambit of 353 IPC. 

The Court delineated the essential ingredient of an offence to fall under Section 353 IPC- 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 was evident that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. The Court opined that, in the instant case the ingredients for offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out.

Whether posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police would fall under the ambit of th s. 506 of the IPC would 

Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation.  For an offence to be made out under s. 506 IPC there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.

Upon a perusal of allegations meted out in the instant case, 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 Court reiterated that the threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. 

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. 

The Court agreed with the averment of the Counsel for the appellant  that Facebook the page created by the traffic police on Facebook was a forum for the public to put forth their grievances where the appellants might have posted the comment online under the bona fide belief that it was within the permissible limits.

The Court opined that even going by the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR, none of the ingredients of the alleged offences were satisfied.

Whether an FIR could be quashed at a preliminary stage of the trial. 

The Courts conceded that the utmost care and extreme caution should be observed while invoking the inherent powers under s. 482 CrPC

The Court posited that when at the initial stage a complaint is seeked  to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence.

The Court also has 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.

In State of T.N. v. Thirukkural Perumal, the apex Court considered the scope of Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR/criminal proceedings, and held  that the power of quashing an FIR and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the courts and with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner. However, if upon a scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered view and the Court it would be unjust to allow the process of the court to be continued against the appellants the complaints could be quashed even at a preliminary stage. 

Ratio Decidendi 

The Court in the present case observed that bona fide complaint made on the Facebook page of the Respondent could not be construed as criminal intimidation. 

Furthermore the High Court was empowered to quash the complaint even at a preliminary stage upon a meticulous scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case. 

The present appeal was allowed and the complaint against the appellant was quashed.