The complainant alleged that he received threatening and derogatory remarks through an email. The investigation had established that the internet connection was issued to the agriculture university and the device’s IP address belonged to the petitioner in February, 2019.The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a chargesheet against a former faculty of Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (CSKHPKV), Palampur, over alleged threatening and derogatory emails sent in 2019.Allowing the petition under CrPC Section 482, the HC of Justice Sandeep Sharma held that although the email contained “filthy” and objectionable language, the essential ingredients required to establish offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 504, 506 and 507 were not made out.The High Court held that the contents of the email did not amount to criminal intimidation under IPC Section 506 as there was no clear threat of injury to the complainant, his reputation, property or family members, nor any indication that the petitioner intended to cause alarm. The court also ruled that IPC Section 507 dealing with anonymous criminal intimidation was not applicable since the email was allegedly traced to the petitioner’s IP address.The FIR was registered at Kangra’s Palampur Police Station against unknown persons, based on the complaint filed by a Senior Scientist of the Department of Agricultural Biotechnology.The complainant alleged that he received threatening and derogatory remarks through an email. The investigation had established that the internet connection was issued to the agriculture university and the device’s IP address belonged to the petitioner in February, 2019.The court observed in the judgement that while abusive language had allegedly been used against the complainant and his family members, there was no material on record to suggest that the petitioner intentionally provoked the complainant to breach public peace or commit any offence, which is a necessary requirement under IPC Section 504. In foreground, this court is persuaded to conclude that ingredients of IPC Section 506 prima facie are not disclosed against the petitioner.In the judgement, the court said, “In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that there was intentional insult at the behest of the petitioner with intent or knowledge to… cause alarm to the complainant, rather as has been observed hereinabove, email, which is the subject matter of the present case, appears to have been sent to the complainant to make him aware that perpetrator i.e. petitioner herein as well as other like minded persons were aware of his activities, but while doing so, some filthy language was used, which is not sufficient to conclude criminal intimidation.”Story continues below this ad“Having scanned the entire material adduced on record… the Court is persuaded to agree with learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that this Court, while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC, may proceed to quash the charge-sheet/challan submitted against the petitioner… Otherwise also, in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is not accepted, he would be subjected to (an) unnecessary ordeal of facing protracted trial, which otherwise is bound to fail,” the court further said.Justice Sharma noted that the petitioner appeared to have been aggrieved by certain alleged remarks made by the complainant regarding the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and had sent the email to express his anguish and indicate that he and some “like-minded persons” were aware of the complainant’s activities.