SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION REQUIRES A CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF INTENT, SUBSTANTIATED BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD

A division-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 02-01-2025 in the matter of Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021 observed that it is well established that while dealing with an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (Inherent Power of Court), the Court is not permitted to conduct a mini-trial. Instead, the Court must determine whether the alleged offences are prima facie made out. In other words, without delving into a detailed examination of the record, the Court must ascertain whether the allegations have enough substance to meet the statutory threshold.

FACTS:

1. That the aforesaid Appeal was filed before the Apex Court by one, Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja (Appellant) against one State of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent No. 1) and Pooja Tankha (Respondent No. 2 / Complainant), who challenged the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (High Court) which, vide, Impugned Order dated 08.01.2021, the Learned Single Judge declined the prayer, stating that interference through the High Court’s inherent powers is warranted only in cases where proceedings have been initiated with malice or bad faith.
2. The Appellant, and the Respondent No. 2 / Complainant, served as directors in a joint company named “M/s LAJ-IDS Exports Pvt. Ltd.” with a shareholding ratio of 3:1. Disputes arose between the two over the management and finances of the company, leading to allegations and counter-allegations.
3. The Respondent No. 2/ Complainant filed a Complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Janpad – Gautambuddh Nagar, whereby, she made an allegation against RK Aneja (brother of the Appellant and A-1 in the charge sheet), of inappropriate behaviour, including physical harassment, threats, and an attempt to rape her. She alleged that she informed the Appellant about his brother’s behaviour, but no action was taken. Frustrated by the inaction of the Police, despite filing a Complaint, she approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) under Section 156(3) CrPC for relief.
4. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, which was dismissed as there was no clear evidence of harassment but noted the existence of disputes related to the Company’s management and finances. On 20.08.2019, the CJM directed the registration of FIR No. 1074 of 2019 under Sections 354 (Assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC, naming both the Appellant and his brother as Accused.
5. The Appellant subsequently filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking protection from arrest and the quashing of the FIR. The High Court granted protection from arrest but refused to quash the FIR, observing that interference under Section 482 CrPC is limited to cases of malicious or mala fide prosecutions and that the matter required a full trial due to disputed questions of fact.
6. Aggrieved, the Appellant argued that the Complainant filed the FIR with malicious intent to cover up fraudulent activities on her part. He contended that the allegations were vague and unsupported by evidence, and the charge sheet contained only unsubstantiated claims. He also asserted that the case stemmed from disputes related to the Company’s operations, rather than any criminal conduct.

HIGH COURT:

The High Court, in its observations, refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the Appellant under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court held that the inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of malicious or mala fide prosecution. The Court noted that the matter involved disputed questions of fact, which could not be resolved without conducting a full trial.

The High Court further stated that it could not engage in a “microscopic examination” of the facts and evidence at this stage to prevent the Prosecution’s Case. It emphasized that allegations presented by the Complainant required judicial scrutiny during the trial and that it was not within the Court’s purview, at this stage, to evaluate the merits of the evidence in detail. Consequently, while the High Court granted protection from arrest to the Appellant until the submission of the final report, it declined to quash the FIR or charge sheet. The High Court also directed the Trial Court to consider the Appellant’s bail application on its own merits.

ISSUES:

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the charges levelled against the Appellant under Sections 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were prima facie made out from the evidence on record, thereby justifying the High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

SUPREME COURT:

The Supreme Court, after examining the facts and evidence on record, observed that the allegations against the Appellant lacked substantive evidence and did not meet the prima facie threshold to proceed with the case under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court noted that for an offence under Section 354 IPC, it is essential to establish that criminal force was used with the intent to outrage a woman’s modesty. However, in this case, the record was devoid of any evidence indicating the use of force or specific acts that could substantiate the allegations. The Court found that the assertions in the FIR and the charge sheet were vague and unsubstantiated by any corroborative material, such as CCTV footage or eyewitness accounts.

Regarding the charge under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation, the Court emphasized that an essential ingredient is the clear intention of the accused to cause alarm, which must be evident from the evidence on record. The Court observed that the allegations against the Appellant consisted of general statements and lacked any tangible proof to demonstrate such intent.

The Court reiterated that while deciding an Application under Section 482 CrPC, it is not permissible to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence, but there must be sufficient material on record to establish a prima facie case. The Court held that the documents and evidence in this case failed to meet even this basic threshold.

CONCLUSION:

As a result, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the Appellant, holding that the allegations against him were unsupported and did not justify a trial. The Court clarified that its observations were restricted solely to the Appellant and did not impact the ongoing proceedings against the co-accused, R.K. Aneja.

 

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer