Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nutan Giri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2020
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1- MCRC No.33660/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC NO.33660/2020
Nutan Giri s/o Bherulal Girio vs. State of M.P & one
another
06.10.2020: (INDORE):
Shri A.K.Nahar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms.Priyanka Raj Panwar, learned Panel Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video
conferencing.
ORDER
This is a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashment of the FIR No.161 dated 09.07.2020 registered at police station Kayatha, district Ujjain.
2. As per the prosecution story complainant, Rahul Rathore made a written complaint in the police station that on 04.07.2020 when he was closing down his shop, the present petitioner came there and projected himself as a journalist and demanded Rs. 5000/ from him otherwise he would get his shop sealed. He abused him by filthy language as he did not give him Rs.5000/-. The complaint was recorded in the police station and investigation set into motion The I.O obtained information from the Regional Public Relation Office that there is no such information that the petitioner being a journalist. Accordingly, the police have registered a case under sections 384, 294 & 506 against him. The petitioner filed an application under section 438 Cr.p.C before the Sessions Court as well as this Court and both the applications have been dismissed. Now the -2- MCRC No.33660/2020 petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code mainly on the ground that even if the allegations recorded in the FIR are treated to be true from the face of it even then also no offence under section 384, 294 & 506 IPC is made out. In order to make the offence non-bailable police have wrongly registered the offence under the aforesaid provisions.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the offence under section 384 IPC is said to have made out whoever commits the offence of extortion and the extortion is defined under section 383 IPC according to which whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security commits "extortion". He further submits that as per the allegation by the complainant the petitioner by way of threat has demanded Rs.5000/- but the same was not given to him by the complainant, therefore, at the most, the offence under section385 IPC is made out where any person is put into fear in order to commit extortion. The offence under section 385 is cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable and triable by Magistrate. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Issac Isanga Musumba and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 357. He further submits that the offence under section 506 IPC is also not made out against the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of U.P & others reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207. For proving the offence under section 506 three -3- MCRC No.33660/2020 ingredients are liable to be proved by the prosecution viz. (i) that the accused threatened some person (ii) such threat consists of some injury to his person, reputation or property of the person (iii) he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person. The petitioner has never abused the complainant by filthy language, hence the offence under section 294 IPC is also not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never impersonated as a journalist but he is actually a Shramjeevi Patrakar with the identity card issued by the M.P Shramjeevi Patrakar Sangh. Being a journalist he was only collecting the news and under political pressure, he has been falsely implicated in the case.
4. Learned Panel Advocate opposes this petition by submitting that the investigation is pending and the Challan has not been filed so far. After completion of the investigation, the Challan will be filed under appropriate provisions of law. Thereafter the petitioner shall have a chance to defend himself at the stage of framing of charges before the competent Court, hence the present petition is pre- mature and not maintainable. In support of his contention, she has placed reliance on the order passed by the coordinate Bench in MCRC No.11871/2019(Gwl).
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. As per the contents of the FIR the complainant, Rahul Rathore gave information to the police that on 04.07.2020 he was closing the shop and the petitioner came there and started video recording of his shop and threatened him that he will get his shop sealed and canceled the license if he -4- MCRC No.33660/2020 does not pay him Rs.5000/-. He also abused him in filthy language. The complainant did not deliver Rs.5000/- to the petitioner under fear. The offence under section 384 IPC is made out if the accused puts any person in fear or cause any injury or dishonestly induce such person to deliver any property or valuable security. Section 385 is made out if the accused in order to commit the extortion puts any person in fear or attempt to put any person in fear of any injury. This court in the case of M.Cr.C.11871/2019 (Sudha Tripathi Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. decided on 2.5.2016 has held as under:-
6. Testing the attending factual matrix on the anvil of legal provision and the analysis made (supra), it is seen that charge-sheet reveals that the first two foundational ingredients of extortion i.e. 20 putting the victim/complainant to fear and thereby to induce her/her father to part with property/valuable security are very much alleged. However, the fact remains that the victim and her father who were subjected to fear and inducement did not deliver Rs.20,00,000/- as demanded by the petitioner and other co-accused. Thus, the allegations prima facie reveal satisfaction of the first stage of extortion where all possible steps were taken by petitioner to perpetuate the offence of extortion but the last step of delivery of valuables was not taken by the complainant. This clearly reveals that petitioner had taken all possible steps of instilling fear in the mind of complainant to persuade/induce the victim. This positive overt act of petitioner clearly demonstrate that attempt was made by petitioner to commit extortion.
7. In the conspectus of the discussion supra, this Court is of the considered view that allegation in the charge-sheet spell out prima facie offence punishable under Sec.385 (attempt to extortion) of IPC and not Sec.384 of IPC.
6. In the present case from the face of it, the allegation against the petitioner is that in order to commit extortion he put the complainant into fear of cancellation of his license -5- MCRC No.33660/2020 and sealing of his shop. The complainant did not deliver him Rs.5000/-, therefore, the offence under section 384 IPC is not made out and prima facie the offence under section 385 IPC is made out. So far the offence under section 294 and 506 are concerned there is no ground for interfering in it as it is a matter of evidence, therefore, this petition is partly allowed. The respondent No.1 is directed to proceed with the investigation under section 385, 294 & 506 IPC.
The petition is partly allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by Hari Kumar
Nair
hk/ Date: 2020.10.07 19:12:36 +05'30'