VIKRAM JOHAR versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 26-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
VIKRAM JOHAR
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.759 of 2019)
APRIL 26, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 504, 506 and 383, 384, 471 –
Respondent No.2-complainant, was partner of a Company engaged
in business of wood processing and sale – Fire broke into the
premises of the Company – Company raised insurance claim –
Insurance company appointed certified surveyor – Appellant,
director of the certified surveyor, undertook the survey and submitted
final survey report dated 23.09.2011 – Respondent No.2, filed
application u/s.156(3), Cr.P.C,  alleging offences u/ss.383, 384, 471,
504 and 506, IPC by the appellant in an incident that allegedly
took place on 02.10.2011 – Insurance claim repudiated by the
Insurance Company – Twice the concerned IOs submitted closure
report, whereafter protest petitions were filed by respondent no.2 –
Eventually, Judicial Magistrate holding that no further investigation
was required directed that the matter be tried as complaint case –
Application for discharge filed by the appellant – Rejected– Revision
before the High Court– Dismissed– On appeal, held: 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
respondent no.2 – Various correspondences were made by
respondent no.2 with the appellant and the insurance company –
In the letter dated 11.09.2011, addressed to insurance company,
there was no allegation made against the appellant – For the first
time in letter dated  19.09.2011, allegation was made that the
appellant asked money for the final survey report – It was only
after final survey report was submitted by the appellant on
23.09.2011, that the incident dated 02.10.2011 was alleged in which
appellant was alleged to have threatened the respondent no.2 –
Application u/s.156(3), Cr.P.C. was filed on 14.11.2011 – While
considering the discharge application, the Court is to exercise its
judicial mind to determine whether case for trial has been made out
[2019]  8 S.C.R. 1
    1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
or not – Allegation in the present case that the appellant had abused
the complainant when taken on its face value does not satisfy the
ingredients of ss.504 and 506 – Intentional insult must be of such a
degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or
to commit any other offence – Judgment of the High Court and the
order of Chief Judicial Magistrate set aside – Appellant stands
discharged from the offence u/ss.504 and 506 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – ss. 156(3), 239 and 245.
Penal Code, 1860– s.506 – Offence of criminal intimidation
– Ingredients to be proved – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 239 and 245 –
Discharge application under –  Power of Court – Scope – Held:
While considering the discharge application, the Court is to exercise
its judicial mind to determine whether case for trial has been made
out or not – In such proceedings, the Court is not to hold the mini
trial by marshalling the evidence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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. [Para 10] [9-G]
1.2 The appellant visited the premises at 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
the 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. 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. It was only after final survey
report submitted by the appellant on 23.09.2011, which was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
received on 27.09.2011 that the appellant alleged the incident
dated 02.10.2011, in which appellant has alleged to have
threatened the complainant.  It is to b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.