MANIK TANEJA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

                       [2015) 1 S.C.R. 156


A                    MANIK TANEJA & ANR.
                                V.
                 STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2015)
                       JANUARY 20, 2015.
B
        [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing
    of criminal proceedings - Permissibility - Comments posed
c   on Traffic Police Facebook page by the appellant against
    respondent-Po/ice Inspector alleging harassment - FIR by
    the Inspector against the appellants ulss 353 and 506 /PC -
    Petition for quashing FIR - Dismissed by High Court as
    premature - On appeal, held: The FIR was liable to be
0   quashed as it does not disclose the alleged commission of
    offence - Continuance of the prosecution would amount to
    abuse of process ()f the Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 353
    and 506.

        Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
       HELD: 1. 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
F 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
G 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. [para 9] [160-G-H; 161-A-B]

H                              156
MANIK TANEJA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & 157
                         ANR.
    State of T.N. v. Thirukkural Perumal 1995 (1) SCR 712 =     A
(1995) 2 sec 449 - relied on

    2. The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the
offence should have assaulted the public servant or used        8
criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the
public servant from discharging his duty as such public
servant. In the present case, there is absolutely nothing
on record to show that the appellants either assaulted
the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the           C
second respondent from discharging his official duty.
Thus, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353
IPC are not made out. [para 12] [162-B-C-D]

     3. T~e act of the appellants posting a comment on the
Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal                D
intimidation in Section 503 IPC. 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       E
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. Mere expression of any words without any        F
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         G
intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the
minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in
discharge of his duty. [para 15] [163-E, B-D]

    4. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the court should be extremely cautious to              H
     158       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A interfere with the investigation or trial of a criminal case
  and should not stall the investigation, save except when
  it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR
  does not disclose commission of offence and that
  continuance of the criminal prosecution would amount
B to abuse of process of the court. 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. [para 16) [163-F-G; 164-8)
c                       Case L.aw Reference :
           1995 (1) SCR -712        relied on            para 9
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 141 of 2015 .
0
          .From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2014 of the
    . High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No.
      252 of 2014.

E          Bharadwaj S. Iyengar, Vikas Upadhyay for the Appellants.

        Joseph Aristotle, Priya Aristotle, M. B. Elakkumaran for the
    Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
           R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. This appeal by Special Leave arises out of the judgment
  dated 24:04.2014 passed by the Karnataka High Court in
  Criminal Petition No.252 of 2014, in and by which, the High
G Court, while dismissing the petition, held that the petition· is
  premature and the same is filed even before the completion of
  the investigation.

      3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as
H under:- The appellant No.1 and his wife Sakshi Jawa met with
MANIK TANEJA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & 159
           ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
an accident with an auto rickshaw on 13.06.2013 at about           A
10.30 in the morning, while Sakshi Jawa was driving Maruti
SX4 KA-03-MM-8646. 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. Sakshi Jawa, the appellant No.2, is said to have paid   B
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, Police Inspector, Pulakeshi Nagar Traffic Police        C
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 No.2 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          0
those documents. Mr. Kasim, in reply, is alleged to have
threatened appellant No.2 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    E
negligent driving.

     4. 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            F
misbehaviour and also forwarded an email complaining about
the harassment meted out to them at the hands of the
Respondent Police Inspector. The Respondent No.2-Police
Inspector filed a complaint regarding the posting of the
comment on the Facebook by the appellants and subsequently         G
FIR was registered against the appellants for offences
punishable under Sections 353 ,and 506 IPC on 14.06.2013.

    5. The appellants filed ,..Criminal Petition No. 252 of 2014
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking to
                                                                   H
    160      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                _(2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated against
    them on the ground that the complaint is an afterthought. The
    High court vide its Order dated 24.04.2014 dismissed the
    petition stating that the petition was filed at a premature stage.
    The appellants by this special leave are seeking to assail the
8   correctness of the above Order.

        6. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that
  posting of a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic
  police does not amount to an offence under Sections 353 and
  506 IPC and the FIR was not sustainable in law. It was
C submitted that Facebook page of the Bengaluru traffic police
  itself is a public forum meant for citizens to discuss and post
  their grievances and therefore, the comment of the appellants
  posted on the Facebook would not prima facie constitute the
  offence and the High Court erred in not appreciating the matter
D in proper perspective.

        7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondents
  contended that by posting a comment on the Facebook of the
  traffic police, the appellants obstructed the public duty of the
E complainant and his staff by publicly making baseless
  allegations. It was submitted that such posting of derogatory
  comments on the Facebook page amounts to 'threatening' and
  'criminal intimidation' within the meaning of Section 506 IPC
  affecting the complainant's reputation and integrity and the High
F Court rightly declined to quash the FIR and the impugned order
  warrants no interference.

         8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused
    the impugned order and materials on record.

G      9. 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
H which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is
MANIK TANEJA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & 161
           ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution   A
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.                                                   B

     10. In State of T.N. v. Thirukkural Perumal [(1995) 2 SCC
449] considering the scope of Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash
the FIR/criminal proceedings, this Court has held as under:-

    ".... The power of quashing an FIR and criminal proceeding       C
    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 (reference in this       D
    connection may be made with advantage to State of
    Haryana v. Bhajan Lal {1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) but the
    same has to be done with circumspection. The normal
    process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather
    casual manner .... "                                             E

     11. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR
under Section 353 IPC 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. Before
considering the materials on record, we may usefully refer to
                                                                     F
Section 353 IPC which reads as follows:-

     "353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant
     from discharge of his duty.- Whoever assaults or uses
     criminal force to any person being a public servant in the      G
     execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent
     to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty
     as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done
     or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful
     discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be          H
    162        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               · [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A         punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
          which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

         12. A reading of the above provision shows that the
   essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are
   that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted
8
   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
C 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, in our view, that the ingredients of the offence under
   Section 353 IPC are not made out.
D
        13. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence
   of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in
   Section 503 IPC is as under:-

          "503. Criminal Intimidation.- Whoever threatens another
E
          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
F         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
          deceased person in whom the person threatened is
G         interested, is within this section."

       14. A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation"
  would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to
  another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation,
H or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom
MANIK TANEJA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & 163
           ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with         A
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.

      15. In the instant case, the allegation is t:1at the appellants   8
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         C
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           D
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            E
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 IPC.

      16. Of course, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section      F
482 Cr.P.C., the court should be extremely cautious to interfere
with the investigation or trial of a criminal case and should not
stall the investigation .. save except when it is convinced beyond
any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission
of offence and that continuance of the criminal prosecution
                                                                        G
would amount to abuse of process of the court. As noted
earlier, the page created by the traffic police on the Facebook
was a forum for the public to put forth their grievances. In our
considered view, the appellants might have posted the
comment online under the bona fide belief that it was within the
                                                                        H
    164       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   permissible limits. As discussed earlier, even going by the
    uncontroverted allegations in the FIR, in our view, none of the
    ingredients of the alleged offences are satisfied. We are of the
                                                             \
    view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would
    be unjust to allow the process of the court to be continued
B   against the appellants and consequently the order of the High
    Court is liable to be set aside.

         17. In the result, the impugned order of the High Court in
    Criminal Petition No.252 of 2014 dated 24.4.2014 is set aside
C   and this appeal is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.174/2013
    registered against the appellants is quashed.

    Kalpana K. Tripathy                               Appeal allowed