Allahabad High Court
Ashish Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136528 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** A.F.R. (SL No.9) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43649 of 2024 Applicant :- Ashish Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 03.05.2024 as well as Bailable Warrant dated 29.07.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 11846 of 2021 (Vishnu Kumar vs. Ashish Srivastava) under Sections 384 and 166 I.P.C., P.S.- Khurja Nagar, District- Bulandshahr, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr.
3. Learned Senior Counsel of the applicant submits that even if the entire allegation, as made in the complaint, be taken on its face value, no offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant herein. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon an order passed by the Apex Court in Isaac Isanga Musumba and Others vs. State Of Maharashtra and Others : 2014 15 SCC 357.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that as per Section 383 I.P.C., actual delivery of the money or valuable security is not necessary. Mere demand for the same is sufficient to constitute an offence under Sections 384 I.P.C. Thus, learned A.G.A. submits that since a prima facie case has been made out against the applicant under Sections 384 and 166 I.P.C., he has been summoned vide order dated 03.05.2024. Consequently, on his non appearance non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants vide order dated 29.07.2024.
5. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the opposite party no.2 has filed a Complaint Case No. 11846 of 2021 alleging therein that the opposite party no.2 was running a Flour Mill and thereby produce the flour in the name of Goldsun Bhog Atta and sell the same in bulk and also used to prepare the flour from the grains brought by the individuals in his mill. The allegations against the applicant herein is that on 21.06.2021, the applicant herein who was posted as Supply Inspector, Khurja in the office of District Supply Officer, Bulandshahr came to the Flour Mill of the opposite party no.2 alongwith Supply Inspector and Constables of police around 4:30 P.M. When he realized the opposite party no.2 was running his Flour Mill on a large scale he demanded Rs. 50,000/- otherwise, his Flour Mill would be sealed. The opposite party no.2 resisted such an illegal demand by the applicant herein, stating that since the opposite party no.2 is not having any business relationship with the department of the applicant herein then why he should pay the amount demanded by the applicant. Upon which the applicant then sealed the Flour Mill of the opposite party no.2 and forcibly obtained his signatures on various papers. Due to the sealing of the Flour Mill, the grains and the flour, lying there, are damaged. Thereby, the opposite party no.2 has sustained a loss of Rs.5,00,000/- and he is unable to run his business and he had to pay the electricity bill and bank interest etc. Since the applicant herein had no legal right to inspect the Flour Mill or the accounts thereof, thereby he had no right to seal the Flour Mill. Therefore, he has acted in excess of his legal authority to interfere with the business of the opposite party no.2 and sealed his premises.
6. In support of his complaint, the opposite party no.2 has examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. He supported the submissions, however, he categorically stated that despite the demand made by the applicant herein, he has not paid any amount to the applicant. The allegations are duly supported by the witness, Mr. Rajkumar Saini. In the statement of witness, namely, Rajkumar Saini under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the trial court, on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, having recorded the satisfaction that a prima facie case has been made for the offences under Sections 384 and 166 I.P.C., summoned the applicant herein for the offences under Sections 384 and 166 I.P.C. vide summoning order dated 03.05.2024. Since the applicant herein did not participate in the said proceeding despite summons issued to him, vide order dated 29.07.2024 issued a bailable warrant against the applicant herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant application.
7. It is stated by the applicant in the instant application that since he was directed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate- Khurja, that grains supplied for Public Distribution System/Mid-Day Meal is being sold and purchased in the Flour Mill of the opposite party no.2. Thereupon the applicant along with the Tehsildar- Khurja, Sub-Inspector and a Constable went to the Flour Mill of the opposite party no.2 and it was found that teacher, Smt. Neeraj Goswami of Primary School No. 15 had brought six bags of wheat containing 50 KG in each with the Government stitched plastic. However, when an explanation was asked, no satisfactory reply was given. However, the said teacher Neeraj Goswami has explained that they used to purchase the flour on credit basis from the Flour Mill and when the wheat is received by the School, the same is returned to the Flour Mill. Thereupon, the applicant herein has proceeded against the opposite party no.2 under the provisions of Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for those wheat and rice in the Flour Mill.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has acted as per the direction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and well within its rights and the proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act were initiated against the opposite party no.2. As a counterblast to the same the instant complaint case has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 with a view to falsely implicated applicants herein in the instant case and in the complaint as well as in his statement the opposite party no.2 has categorically admitted that no amount pursuant to the demand raised by the applicant has been paid. Thus, no offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is made out.
9. To appreciate the aforesaid arguments it would be relevant to take note the provisions of Sections 383 and 384 I.P.C. which reads as under:
"S. 383. Extortion.-Who mever 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 of sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
Illustrations
(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.
(b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z's child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z sings and delivers the note. A has committed extortion.
(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z's field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.
(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z sings and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.
S.384 Punishment for extortion- Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
10. In R.S. Nayak vs A.R. Antulay and Another, AIR 1986 SC 2045, while interpreting Section 383 I.P.C., the following has been observed:
"60. ?Extortion? is thus defined in Section 383, IPC:
?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.?
The main ingredients of the offence are:
(i) the accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person;
(ii) the putting of a person in such fear must be intentional;
(iii) the accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security; and (iv) such inducement must be done dishonestly.
Before a person can be said to put any person in fear of any injury to that person, it must appear that he has held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future. If all that a man does is to promise to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do and says that if money is not paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an offence of extortion. We agree with this view which has been indicated in Habibul Razak v. King-Emperor [AIR 1924 All 197 : 25 Cri LJ 961 : 21 ALJ 850] . There is no evidence at all in this case that the managements of the sugar cooperatives had been put in any fear and the contributions had been paid in response to threats. Merely because the respondent was Chief Minister at the relevant time and the sugar cooperatives had some of their grievances pending consideration before the Government and pressure was brought about to make the donations promising consideration of such grievances, possibly by way of reciprocity, we do not think the appellant is justified in his contention that the ingredients of the offence of extortion have been made out. The evidence led by the prosecution falls short of the requirements of law in regard to the alleged offence of extortion. We see, therefore, no justification in the claim of Mr Jethmalani that a charge for the offence of extortion should have been framed."
11. In Dhananjay v. State of Bihar, (2007) 14 SCC 768, the Apex Court has interpreted the provisions of Section 383 I.P.C. as under:
"5. Section 384 provides for punishment for extortion. What would be an extortion is provided under Section 383 of the Penal Code in the following terms:
?383. 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?.
6. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would demonstrate that the following ingredients would constitute the offence:
1. The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person.
2. The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional.
3. The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.
4. Such inducement must be done dishonestly."
12. In Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC 357, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"3................. In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as defined in Section 383 IPC is made out. Section 383 IPC states that:
?383. 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?.
Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and an FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been registered by the police."
13. In Labhshanker Keshavji and Another vs. State : AIR 1955 Saurashtra 42 (Vol. 42, C.N. 17), it was held that offence is in the actual delivery of the property by the person put in fear and the offence is not complete before such delivery.
14. The Oxford Dictionary refers the word 'induce' means 'to succeed in persuading and leading someone to do something'.
15. As per the Cambridge Dictionary the 'induce' mean 'persuade someone to do something or to cause something to happen.'
16. Thus, the 'inducement' means something has been done on the basis of such persuasion and the task is complete. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgement specifically the Isanga Musumba (supra) and Dhananjay (supra) to complete the offence of expiration under Section 383 and 384 I.P.C. actual delivery of any property valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted in the valuable security is necessary. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court since it is the admitted case of the opposite party no.2 that despite the demand raised by the applicant herein no amount was paid by the applicant, thus, the offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is not complete in the instant case.
17. It would also be relevant to take note of provisions of Section 385 I.P.C. and 511 I.P.C., which reads has under:
"S. 385 Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion.- Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
S. 511 Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.- Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for lif e or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."
18. In Hem Chandra Singh vs. Emperor : AIR 1927 Pat 89 it was held that Section 385 I.P.C. does not expressly provide for the punishment of an attempt at extortion. Section 511 I.P.C. evidently relates to such offence. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court though offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is not made out in the instant case, however from the allegation as leveled in the instant case, an offence under Sections 384 read with Section 511 I.P.C. is categorically made out against the applicant.
19. So far as the summoning of the applicant for the offence under Section 166 I.P.C. is concerned that is not being assailed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant.
20. In view thereof, since from the allegations and the statement from the allegations as made in the complaint and the statement of witness the offences under Section 384 is not made out, however, from the allegations the offence under Section 384 read with Section 511 I.P.C. is prima facie established in the instant case. In view thereof, the impugned summoning order dated 03.05.2024 is modified to the extent that the applicant herein is summoned for the offence under Section 384 read with Section 511 I.P.C. and Section 166 I.P.C.
21. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)