Supreme Court Acquits Insurance Surveyor: A Detailed Analysis of Criminal Intimidation Case

The case of Vikram Johar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. revolves around an allegation of criminal intimidation, with accusations that the appellant, Vikram Johar, abused and threatened the complainant due to an insurance claim dispute. The Supreme Court, in its detailed analysis, examined whether the allegations satisfied the legal requirements of criminal intimidation and intentional insult.

The appeal challenged the Allahabad High Court’s judgment that dismissed the appellant’s criminal revision. The revision was filed against the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s rejection of his discharge application under Sections 239 and 245 of the Cr.P.C. The key legal issue revolved around whether the allegations under Sections 504 and 506 IPC were sufficient to proceed with a trial.

Background of the Case

The complainant was a partner in M/s. Ram Company, which was engaged in wood processing and sales in Kosikala, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. On 18th December 2010, a fire broke out at the company’s premises, causing significant damage. A police investigation attributed the fire to an electrical short circuit.

M/s. Ram Company had a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., under which they filed an insurance claim amounting to Rs. 3,62,45,114. The insurance company appointed M/s. Protocol Surveyor and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., where the appellant was the director, to assess the claim. The appellant conducted a survey and submitted a final report on 23rd September 2011, concluding that the claim was not admissible due to misrepresentation and false declarations.

Key Findings in the Survey Report

The insured misrepresented their claim regarding the building.
The insured misrepresented their claim on plant and machinery.
The insured made false declarations to inflate the stock quantity.
The insured misrepresented the stock value.

As per the policy conditions, misrepresentation and fraudulent claims resulted in a voidable policy and forfeiture of benefits.

Complaint Against the Appellant

Following the submission of the final report, the complainant alleged that on 2nd October 2011, the appellant, along with unknown persons, visited his house, abused him using foul language, and attempted to assault him. The complaint was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to an FIR under Sections 383, 384, 471, 504, and 506 IPC. After investigation, the police submitted a closure report, concluding that the allegations were baseless.

Despite this, the complainant filed a protest petition, leading the Judicial Magistrate to order further investigation. A second investigation also resulted in a closure report. The Magistrate then decided to treat the matter as a complaint case, leading to the appellant’s summoning under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The complaint was a retaliatory measure against the adverse insurance report.
The alleged incident occurred more than a month before the complaint was filed.
Two separate police investigations found no merit in the complaint.
The allegations did not satisfy the legal criteria for criminal intimidation or intentional insult.

Respondent’s Arguments

The appellant’s actions amounted to criminal intimidation.
The complainant’s testimony and witness statements supported the allegations.
The delay in filing the complaint did not negate the validity of the case.
The Magistrate had rightly summoned the appellant based on the material available.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations against the appellant constituted offenses under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. Section 504 IPC requires an intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of peace, while Section 506 IPC deals with criminal intimidation.

Referring to precedents, the Court reiterated that mere abuse does not amount to criminal intimidation. The Court emphasized that the intention to cause alarm must be evident from the complaint. It was observed that the alleged abuse did not provoke any breach of peace or cause alarm justifying legal action under Section 506 IPC.

Key Judicial Observations:

“For an offense under Section 504 IPC, the insult must be of such intensity that it provokes a person to break public peace. Similarly, an offense under Section 506 IPC requires a threat that is real and capable of causing genuine alarm. Mere verbal exchange without an intent to instill fear does not fulfill these conditions.”

The Court relied on previous rulings in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra and Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, reaffirming that allegations must meet statutory conditions before a case can proceed to trial.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and discharged the appellant, setting aside the High Court and Magistrate’s orders. The ruling underscores the need for judicial prudence in criminal cases, ensuring that legal provisions are not misused to harass individuals.

This judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that legal provisions such as Sections 504 and 506 IPC are applied in genuine cases of criminal intimidation and not as retaliatory measures in civil disputes.

Petitioner Name: Vikram Johar.
Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Kosikala, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 26-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vikram Johar vs The State of Uttar P Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category