Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 759 of 2019
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4820/2017)
VIKRAM JOHAR ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 06.02.2017
by which judgment, the criminal revision filed by the
appellant was dismissed. The criminal revision was
filed by the appellant challenging the order dated
29.11.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate rejecting his discharge application moved
under Section 239 read with Section 245 Cr.P.C. in a
complaint case No.483 of 2013 under Section 504 and
506 of I.P.C.
1
3. The brief facts of the case, which need to be
noted for deciding this appeal are:-
3.1 The respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred
to as “complainant”), was a partner of M/s.
Ram Company engaged in business of wood
processing and sale. The company had its
premises at Kosikala, District Mathura,
Uttar Pradesh.
3.2 On 18.12.2010 at 3.00 AM fire broke into
the premises of M/s. Ram Company. Fire
brigade and police were informed, which
reached on the spot and fire could be
controlled after several hours. The cause
of fire was shown as electric short circuit
in electric cable. Fire caused damages of
stocks, plant and machinery and building.
M/s. Ram Company had taken a Standard Fire
& Special Perils Policy from M/s. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. M/s. Ram Company
had submitted insurance claim on
20.12.2010. Total claim raised by the
2
company was Rs.3,62,45,114/-. The United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as “insurance company”)
appointed the appellant M/s. Protocol
Surveyor and Engineers Private Limited, who
is a certified surveyor by Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority. The
appellant being Director of M/s. Protocol
Surveyor and Engineers Private Limited
undertook survey of insurance claim of the
company.
3.3 On 04.04.2011, the appellant visited the
premises at Kosikala, District Mathura for
the purposes of preparing a survey report.
Joint Inspection note was prepared on
04.04.2011, for which various documents
were asked from the company. After various
correspondences, the appellant submitted a
final survey report dated 23.09.2011.
M/s. Ram Company wrote letter dated
15.07.2011 and 22.07.2011 to the surveyor,
3
which was duly replied on 23.07.2011 by the
surveyor. M/S. Ram Company has also
written to insurance company, which was
replied by insurance company on 08.08.2011
informing M/s. Ram Company that surveyors
have been asked to submit their final
report at the earliest.
3.4 On 11.09.2011, the M/s Ram company
submitted a letter to insurance company
requesting to make payment of policy amount
of Rs. 285.60 Lacs. In the said letter,
some complaints were also made against the
surveyor. Again on 19.09.2011, a letter was
sent by M/s. Ram Company to the insurance
company, where allegations were made
against the surveyor. The surveyor, i.e.,
the appellant submitted final report on
23.09.2011 with regard to claim of M/s. Ram
Company, in detail noticing all aspects of
the matter. In the Survey Report in the
last paragraph, following was stated:-
4
“15) Underwriters Liability
In view of the above, it stands
established that
(a) The insured has mis represented
their claim of building.
(b) The insured has mis represented
their claim of Plant & Machinery.
(c) The insured had made false
declaration to inflate the stock
quantity.
(d) The insured had made false
declaration on the stock value
declaration.
This policy shall be voidable in the
event of mis representation, mis
description or non disclosure of any
material particular.
If the claim be in any respect
fraudulent, or if any false
declaration be made or used in
support thereof if any fraudulent
means or devices are used by the
insured or any one acting on his
behalf to obtain any benefit under
the policy or if the loss or damage
be occasioned by the wilful act, or
with the connivance of the insured,
all benefits under this policy shall
be forfeited.
It is clear that the insured’s Mis
representation & False declaration
5
have breached both the above stated
policy conditions.
In view of above, that the subject
claim is not admissible under the
captioned policy of insurance.
This report is being submitted
without prejudice and is subject to
the terms and conditions of the
policy of insurance.
Signed
Protocol Surveyors & Engineers Pvt.
Ltd.”
3.5 On 14.11.2011, respondent No.2, i.e.,
complainant filed an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging offences
under Sections 383, 384, 471, 504 and 506
I.P.C. In the complaint, allegation was
made against the appellant that he
alongwith two or three other unknown
persons, one of whom was holding a
revolver, came to the complainant’s house
on 02.10.2011 at 7.00 PM and abused him in
filthy language and was about to assault
him, When some neighbours arrived there,
the appellant and two or three other
unknown persons fled the spot on their
6
vehicle. On the above application dated
14.11.2011, on the order of the Magistrate,
first information report was lodged being
F.I.R. No.367 of 2011 under Sections 383,
384, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C. registered on
24.11.2011. Insurance company by letter
dated 12.12.2011 repudiated the claim of
M/s. Ram Company. Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and
5 of the said letter are to the following
effect:-
“3. That during the course of
carrying out survey & assessment of
this claim, the overall approach &
conduct of the surveyor was found to
be satisfactory.
4. That the said surveyors
submitted a copy of their Final
Survey report No.2010-DEC-131 dated
23 September, 2011 to this office on
27 September, 2011.
5. That after scrutiny of the
submitted survey report and in
consultation with the technical team
of our Head Office, we have
repudiated the said claim vide our
letter ref.no. VKJ:RK:FC:2011: 235:11
dated 06.12.2011.”
3.6 I.O. conducted the investigation calling
the appellant also and submitted a closure
7
report. In the closure report, I.O. also
had stated that as per the call details and
location of Vikram Singh’s mobile
(appellant), there was no roaming of his
mobile from 1st October to 4th October and
his location was within the NCR area.
After recording the statements of several
persons, the I.O. submitted final form,
closure report. Against the report, a
protest petition was filed by the
complainant before the Judicial Magistrate,
who by order dated 18.05.2012 allowed the
protest petition and directed for further
investigation in the Crime No. 448 of 2011.
Further investigation was also conducted by
another I.O., who again submitted a final
report opining that no offence has been
committed. Again, a protest petition was
filed. The Judicial Magistrate by Order
dated 21.12.2012 held that no further
investigation is required and it shall be
justified to try and dispose of the case as
8
a complaint case. Complainant’s statement
under Section 200 Cr.P.C was recorded.
Complainant also got recorded statement of
PW1- Ganesh Sharma and PW2 – Roop Singh @
Munna.
3.7 The Magistrate by Order dated 07.02.2014
summoned the appellant under Sections 504
and 506 I.P.C. Against the order dated
07.02.2014 an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant in the
Allahabad High Court, which application was
disposed of by the High Court by order
dated 30.07.2014. High Court while
disposing of the application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. observed that in case, if
discharge application is moved by the
applicant within 30 days, it is expected
that the same shall be considered and
decided by a reasoned and speaking order,
and till disposal of the application on
merit, no coercive action shall be taken
against the appellant.
9
3.8 An application was filed by the applicant
under Section 239 read with Section 245
Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate praying that appellant be
discharged. In the application under
Sections 239 and 245, details of claim,
various reports and consideration by
insurance company was mentioned.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide
its order dated 29.11.2016 rejected the
application for discharge against which
Criminal Revision was filed in the High
Court, which has been dismissed on
06.02.2017. Aggrieved, by above order,
this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of
this appeal contends that complaint filed by the
complainant was nothing but proceeding for harassment
of the appellant. The appellant, who was surveyor
having given adverse reports regarding the fire claim
of the company, the complainant due to annoyance and
10
to teach a lesson to the appellant has filed the
complaint. It is submitted that incident is alleged
of 02.10.2011 when appellant is claimed to be visited
his house and threatened him whereas the complaint in
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate was filed on
14.11.2011, i.e., about more than one month and 12
days, which itself indicate that whole story was
concocted to harass the appellant. It is submitted
that police after making thorough investigation twice
have found no offence committed and has submitted the
closure report. It is submitted that ingredients of
offence under Sections 504 and 506 are not made out
on the reading of the complaints and Chief Judicial
Magistrate committed error in rejecting the discharge
application. High Court also did not advert to the
allegations of the complaint and failed to notice
that ingredients of offence under Sections 504 and
506 are not made out.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
have refuted the submissions of the appellant and
submits that there was sufficient material before the
Judicial Magistrate to issue process to summon the
11
appellant and there was no ground for discharging the
appellant from the offence. The allegations in the
complaint makes out a case under Sections 504 and 506
and no error has been committed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate in rejecting the discharge
application and the High Court in dismissing the
criminal revision.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have also placed
reliance on various judgments of this Court, which
shall be referred to while considering the
submissions in detail.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
8. The question to be considered and answered in
this appeal is as to whether in the present case,
appellant was entitled to be discharged from the
offence under Sections 504 and 506 and whether Courts
below committed error in rejecting the discharge
application.
12
9. We have noticed the facts and sequence of events,
which led to filing of the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. by the complainant against the
appellant. We, in the present case, are not
concerned on the merits of the claim of the
complainant regarding insurance claim of the
complainant pertaining to fire incident dated
18.12.2010. Our consideration has to confine only to
the question as to whether the appellant has made out
a case for discharge under Sections 504 and 506
I.P.C.
10. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that
appellant’s role was only of a surveyor appointed by
insurance company to survey and submit report on the
fire insurance claim alleged by the complainant with
regard to incident dated 18.12.2010, which took place
in his factory premises at Kosikala, District
Mathura.
11. The appellant is Director of M/s. Protocol
Surveyor & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. at Sector-7, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh. Appellant visited the premises at
13
Kosikala and held joint inspection on 04.04.2011.
Various correspondences were made by the complainant
with the appellant as well as insurance company. In
the letter dated 11.09.2011, which was addressed to
insurance company, there was no allegation made
against the appellant and for the first time in
letter dated 19.09.2011 sent by M/s. Ram Company,
allegation was made against the appellant that
appellant has asked for money for the final survey
report, which was submitted by the appellant on
23.09.2011, which was received by insurance company
on 27.09.2011.
12. We have noticed above that in the final survey
report recommendation has been made to repudiate the
claim due to misrepresentation and false declaration
made by the appellant, which is breach of policy
condition. The incident alleged against the
appellant is dated 02.10.2011, i.e., immediately
after submission of final survey report. It was only
after final survey report submitted by the appellant
on 23.09.2011, which was received on 27.09.2011 that
14
the appellant alleged the incident dated 02.10.2011,
in which appellant has alleged to have threatened the
complainant. It is to be noted that application
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed for the
first time on 14.11.2011, copies of which is brought
as Annexure P-9. The allegation in the complaint
against the appellant with regard to incident dated
02.10.2011 are as follows:-
“…………..When the complainant did not
entertain the accused Surveyor Vikaram
Johar, he and 2-3 other unknown persons,
one of whom was holding a revolver, whom
the complainant can identify, came to the
complainant’s house on 2.10.2011 at 7.00 Pm
and abused him in filthy language and about
to assault him. When some neighbour
arrived there, the Surveyor Vikaram Johar,
he and 2-3 other unknown persons fled the
spot on their vehicle. The people who had
saved the complainant has seen the
occurrence.”
13. Twice the I.O. have conducted the investigation
and submitted a closure report, on which protest
petition was filed. On the protest petition,
ultimately, the Judicial Magistrate by Order dated
21.12.2012 decided to treat the case as a complaint
case. The complainant as well as its witnesses
15
appeared in the witness box and supported the
incident dated 02.10.2011.
14. Before we proceed to further examine the facts of
the present case, we may notice the ambit and scope
of power of the Court at the time of considering the
discharge application.
15. This Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal & Another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 had occasion to
consider Section 227 Cr.P.C., which is Special
Judge’s power to pass order of discharge. After
noticing Section 227 in paragraph No.7, this Court
held following:-
“7. XXXXXXXXXX
The words “not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused” clearly
show that the Judge is not a mere post
office to frame the charge at the behest of
the prosecution, but has to exercise his
judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial
has been made out by the prosecution. In
assessing this fact, it is not necessary
for the court to enter into the pros and
cons of the matter or into a weighing and
balancing of evidence and probabilities
which is really his function after the
trial starts. At the stage of Section 227,
the Judge has merely to sift the evidence
16
in order to find out whether or not there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. The sufficiency of ground
would take within its fold the nature of
the evidence recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the court which
ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him.”
16. After considering the earlier cases of this
Court, in paragraph No.10, following principles were
noticed:-
“10. Thus, on a consideration of the
authorities mentioned above, the following
principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Code has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has
been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the
Court disclose grave suspicion against
the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be
fully justified in framing a charge
and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie
case would naturally depend upon the
facts of each case and it is difficult
to lay down a rule of universal
17
application. By and large however if
two views are equally possible and the
Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise
to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will
be fully within his right to discharge
the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction
under Section 227 of the Code the
Judge which under the present Code is
a senior and experienced court cannot
act merely as a Post Office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has
to consider the broad probabilities of
the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced
before the Court, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case and
so on. This however does not mean that
the Judge should make a roving enquiry
into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.”
17. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of
Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, had
occasion to consider discharge under Section 227, it
was held by the court that Section 227 was
incorporated in the Code with a view to save the
accused from prolonged harassment which is a
necessary concomitant of a protracted criminal trial.
It is calculated to eliminate harassment to accused
18
persons when the evidential materials gathered after
investigation fall short of minimum legal
requirements.
18. Another judgment of this Court, which is to be
referred is Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287. This
Court in the above case has noticed the potentiality
of misuse of Section 156(3) to harass those, who are
entrusted with various statutory functions. This
Court, in fact, has made observations that
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be
supported by an affidavit so that person making
allegation should take responsibility of what they
have said in the complaint. In paragraph No.30,
following has been held:-
“30. In our considered opinion, a stage has
come in this country where Section 156(3)
CrPC applications are to be supported by an
affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who
seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of
the Magistrate. That apart, in an
appropriate case, the learned Magistrate
would be well advised to verify the truth
and also can verify the veracity of the
allegations. This affidavit can make the
applicant more responsible. We are
compelled to say so as such kind of
applications are being filed in a routine
manner without taking any responsibility
19
whatsoever only to harass certain persons.
That apart, it becomes more disturbing and
alarming when one tries to pick up people
who are passing orders under a statutory
provision which can be challenged under the
framework of the said Act or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. But it
cannot be done to take undue advantage in a
criminal court as if somebody is determined
to settle the scores.”
19. It is, thus, clear that while considering the
discharge application, the Court is to exercise its
judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial
has been made out or not. It is true that in such
proceedings, the Court is not to hold the mini trial
by marshalling the evidence.
20. After noticing the nature of jurisdiction to be
exercised by the Court at the time of discharge, we
now revert back to the facts of the present case,
where taking an allegation of complaint as correct on
the face of it, whether offences under Sections 504
and 506 is made out, is a question to be answered.
21. We need to notice Sections 503, 504 and 506 for
appreciating the issues, which has come up for
consideration, which are to the following effect:-
20
“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 deceased person in whom
the person threatened is interested, is
within this section.
504. Intentional insult with intent to
provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever
intentionally insults, and thereby gives
provocation to any person, intending or
knowing it to be likely that such
provocation will cause him to break the
public peace, or to commit any other
offence, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both.
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;
If threat be to cause death or grievous
hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause
death or grievous hurt, or to cause the
destruction of any property by fire, or to
21
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.”
22. Section 504 of I.P.C. came up for consideration
before this Court in Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Another, (2013) 14 SCC 44. In the said
case, this Court had occasion to examine ingredients
of Section 504, which need to be present before
proceeding to try a case. The Court held that in the
said case, the order issuing process was challenged
by filing a criminal revision. This Court held that
at the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely
concerned with the allegations made out in the
complaint and has only to prima facie satisfy whether
there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the
accused. In paragraph No.11, following principles
have been laid down:-
“11. We are, in this case, concerned only
with the question as to whether, on a
reading of the complaint, a prima facie
case has been made out or not to issue
process by the Magistrate. The law as
regards issuance of process in criminal
22
cases is well settled. At the complaint
stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned
with the allegations made out in the
complaint and has only to prima facie
satisfy whether there are sufficient
grounds to proceed against the accused and
it is not the province of the Magistrate to
enquire into a detailed discussion on the
merits or demerits of the case. The scope
of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely
limited in the sense that the Magistrate,
at this stage, is expected to examine prima
facie the truth or falsehood of the
allegations made in the complaint. The
Magistrate is not expected to embark upon a
detailed discussion of the merits or
demerits of the case, but only consider the
inherent probabilities apparent on the
statement made in the complaint. In Nagawwa
v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976)
3 SCC 736, this Court held that once the
Magistrate has exercised his discretion in
forming an opinion that there is ground for
proceeding, it is not for the Higher Courts
to substitute its own discretion for that
of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has to
decide the question purely from the point
of view of the complaint, without at all
adverting to any defence that the accused
may have.”
23. In paragraph No.13 of the judgment, this Court
has noticed the ingredients of Section 504, which are
to the following effect:-
“13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the
following ingredients viz. (a) intentional
insult, (b) the insult must be such as to
give provocation to the person insulted,
and (c) the accused must intend or know
that such provocation would cause another
23
to break the public peace or to commit any
other offence. The intentional insult must
be of such a degree that should provoke a
person to break the public peace or to
commit any other offence. The person who
intentionally insults intending or knowing
it to be likely that it will give
provocation to any other person and such
provocation will cause to break the public
peace or to commit any other offence, in
such a situation, the ingredients of
Section 504 are satisfied. One of the
essential elements constituting the offence
is that there should have been an act or
conduct amounting to intentional insult and
the mere fact that the accused abused the
complainant, as such, is not sufficient by
itself to warrant a conviction under
Section 504 IPC.”
24. In another judgment, i.e., Manik Taneja and
Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7
SCC 423, this Court has again occasion to examine the
ingredients of Sections 503 and 506. In the above
case also, case was registered for the offence under
Sections 353 and 506 I.P.C. After noticing Section
503, which defines criminal intimidation, this Court
laid down following in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12:-
“11. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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,
24
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.
12. 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 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 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 mind of
the second respondent causing obstruction
in discharge of his duty. As far as the
comments posted on Facebook are concerned,
it appears that it is a public forum meant
for helping the public and the act of the
appellants posting a comment on Facebook
may not attract ingredients of criminal
intimidation in Section 503 IPC.”
25
25. In the above case, allegation was that appellant
had abused the complainant. The Court held that the
mere fact that the allegation that accused had abused
the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of
Section 506.
26. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the
complaint against the appellant. The allegation is
that appellant with two or three other unknown
persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to
the complainant’s house and abused him in filthy
language and attempted to assault him and when some
neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other
persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above
allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy
the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been
enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments.
The intentional insult must be of such a degree that
should provoke a person to break the public peace or
to commit any other offence. The mere allegation
that appellant came and abused the complainant does
not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in paragraph
26
No.13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona
Shrikhande (supra).
27. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is
offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid
down by Fiona Shrikhande (supra) has also to be
applied when question of finding out as to whether
the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here,
the only allegation is that the appellant abused the
complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506
IPC, what are ingredients which have to be proved by
the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of
Crimes, 27th Edition with regard to proof of offence
states following: -
“…The prosecution must prove:
(i) That the accused threatened some
person.
(ii) That such threat consisted of
some injury to his person,
reputation or property; or to the
person, reputation or property of
some one in whom he was
interested;
(iii) That he did so with intent to
cause alarm to that person; or to
cause that person to do any act
which he was not legally bound to
do, or omit to do any act which
he was legally entitled to do as
27
a means of avoiding the execution
of such threat.”
A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint
does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed
above.
28. On the principles as enumerated by this Court in
Fiona Shrikhande (supra) and Manik Taneja (supra), we
are satisfied that ingredients of Sections 504 and
506 are not made out from the complaint filed by the
complainant. When the complaint filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., which has been treated as a complaint
case, does not contain ingredients of Sections 504
and 506, we are of the view that Courts below
committed error in rejecting the application of
discharge filed by the appellant. In the facts of
the present case, we are of the view that appellant
was entitled to be discharged for the offence under
Sections 504 and 506.
29. Thus, in result, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of the High Court dated 06.02.2017 as well
as the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated
28
29.11.2016 are set aside and the appellant stands
discharged from the offence under Sections 504 and
506.
......................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
......................J.
( K.M. JOSEPH )
New Delhi,
April 26, 2019.
29
