Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukul Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2017
1 MCrC 6883/2017
M.Cr.C. No. 6883/2017
18.08.2017
Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Public
Prosecutor.
Heard finally.
ORDER
This petition preferred u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 22.2.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Indore in Cr. Revision No.2/2017, whereby the learned revisional Court declined to interfere with order dated 19.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Cr. Case No.35120/2016 framing a charge against the petitioner u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
2. The petitioner has been prosecuted for offences u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. As per prosecution, on 23.7.2016, Priyanka Mathur - the wife of the present petitioner, lodged first information report with Police Station Tukoganj, Indore that she has received a mobile call from the mobile number of her husband demanding Rs.25.00 Lakhs as ransom for her husband who had come to Indore for some personal work. The person demanding ransom of Rs.25.00 Lakhs informed that 2 MCrC 6883/2017 petitioner - Mukul has been kidnapped and he is in their control. As per prosecution, Priyanka Mathur further informed that when she called back her husband - the petitioner on his mobile phone, then he informed that he has been kidnapped. Around 9 pm., another phone call was received by Priyanka Mathur from her husband informing that the unknown persons are taking him towards Kota (Rajasthan). In between, some one also inquired about arrangement of ransom money. The Police investigated the matter and found that the petitioner was not, as a matter of fact, kidnapped, rather he himself in conspiracy with some other persons, hatched a plan to falsely inform his wife and brother-in-law that he has been kidnapped and thus, persuaded them to part away with Rs.25.00 Lakhs as ransom money. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
3. The petitioner pleaded before the learned trial Court that he himself is the aggrieved person as he was kidnapped by some unknown persons, therefore, a charge u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC cannot be framed against him. The plea did not find favour with the learned Magistrate and the revision preferred against the order passed by the learned Magistrate also came to be dismissed by the impugned order, therefore, the petitioner 3 MCrC 6883/2017 has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prima facie, a charge u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC is not made out against the petitioner because, necessary ingredients to constitute an offence u/s. 387 of IPC are missing, therefore, the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court have committed a serious error of law in holding that a charge u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no evidence to prima facie indicate that the petitioner had demanded Rs.25.00 Lakhs from his wife and brother-in-law as ransom because they have not supported the prosecution story in that regard in their statement recorded u/s. 161 of the Cr.P.C. The contention is that the learned courts below have committed a serious error in not appreciating the relevant legal provisions and, therefore, the impugned order so also the order passed by the learned Magistrate are liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that an offence u/s. 387 read with Section 120- B of the IPC is prima facie made out against the petitioner, who in conspiracy with some unknown person(s) concocted story of his kidnapping and has further tried to obtain 4 MCrC 6883/2017 Rs.25.00 Lakhs in this regard from his wife and brother-in- law. It is submitted that the petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Section 387 of the IPC stipulates the offence with regard to committing of extortion by putting or attempting to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other person. Section 387, which is apposite in this regard, runs as under :-
"387. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion. - Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
8. To constitute an offence u/s. 387 of the IPC, the following two ingredients must prima facie be established :
(i) A person one who puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other person;
(ii) Such person is put to fear of death or grievous hurt for committing extortion.5 MCrC 6883/2017
9. Section 387 of the IPC is a species of 'extortion', which has been defined in Section 383 of the IPC, which runs as under :-
"Extortion. - Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits 'extortion'.
10. Thus, to constitute 'extortion' it must be shown that someone intentionally had put any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other person thereby dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into valuable security. Hence, to constitute 'extortion' within the meaning of Section 387 of the IPC, the accused must have put or attempted to put any person in fear of death or grievous hurt either to that person or to any other person.
11. In the instant case, it is not the plea of the prosecution that the petitioner had put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, therefore, one of the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence u/s. 387 of the IPC is totally missing. In absence of this ingredient, prima faice, a 6 MCrC 6883/2017 charge u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC could not have been framed against the petitioner. The learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court have failed to appreciate this legal position, therefore, the impugned order so also the order passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from serious illegality.
12. Learned counsel for the State has invited attention of this Court to Section 415 and Section 420 of the IPC. It is submitted that if an offence u/s. 387 of the IPC is not made out, then an offence of cheating, as defined in Section 420 of the IPC is, prima faice, made out against the petitioner because the petitioner has dishonestly induced his wife and brother-in-law to deliever Rs.25.00 Lakhs as ransom. The alleged kidnapper was none other than the petitioner. Therefore, the learned trial Court may be directed to frame a charge against the petitioner in that regard.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the learned trial Court itself is competent to examine as to whether prima facie, a charge u/s. 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner or not, therefore, no direction in this regard is required to be issued.
14. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order as well as the order passed by the learned Magistrate framing a charge against the petitioner 7 MCrC 6883/2017 u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC is hereby quashed, however, the learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to examine as to whether a charge u/s. 420 of the IPC is, prima facie, made out against the petitioner.
( VED PRAKASH SHARMA ) JUDGE Alok/-