Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kapil Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2019
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1 Mcrc 6957/19
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mcrc 6957/19
(Dr. Kapil Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior Dt. 20/8/2019
Shri Umesh Bohare, Advocate with Shri Rohit Jagwani, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri K.K.Kori, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3/State.
Shri U.K. Shrivas, Advocate for respondent No.4. Inherent powers of this court u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. are invoked to assail the FIR vide Annexure-A/1 dated 8/12/2018 bearing Crime No.505/18 alleging offences punishable u/S. 420 IPC registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior (M.P.) against lone petitioner/accused.
Dual grounds are raised by leaned counsel for petitioner in support of aforesaid challenge. Firstly, that offence of extortion alleged u/S. 384 is not made out in the absence of any delivery of property which is one of the essential ingredients to constitute offence of extortion defined in Sec. 383 IPC. The other ground raised is in regard to offence punishable u/S. 195-A IPC that no FIR can be lodged in respect of said offence in view of bar contained in Sec., 195 & 195-A Cr.P.C.
So far as first ground of challenge pertaining to the offence of extortion is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner relies upon single bench decision of this court in Mcrc 2302/2012 (Smt. Dipti Gupta Vs. Smt. Sheta Parmar) decided on 21/4/2018 where this court had quashed the prosecution pertaining to the offence of extortion on the ground that allegations therein did not prima faice establish delivery of property/ 2 Mcrc 6957/19 valuable security.
It is submitted that in the instant case there is allegation of extending threats by petitioner who happens to be husband of complainant-respondent No.4 to the extent that in case she does not compromise in earlier criminal prosecution pending between rival parties then petitioner-husband would forward all messages and recordings in his mobile to all the relatives.
It is submitted that respondent No.4-complainant was though attempted to be induced into delivering of property/valuable security but there is no actual delivery and therefore in the absence of the same no offence of extortion is made out.
True it is that the FIR does not per se reveal delivery of property but the fact remains that the investigation in the matter is pending where possibility of collecting further implicative evidence coming on record cannot be ruled out and therefore this court declines interference so far as challenge to the impugned FIR is concerned qua the offence of extortion.
As regards other ground of bar contained in Sec. 195 & 195-A Cr.P.C., this court is of the firm view that said bar comes into play or can be utilized only when the stage of taking of cognizance arises. In the instant case investigation is still pending and therefore the cognizance of the offence in question has not yet been taken by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. Thus the said ground does not hold any water.
In view of the above, this petition is more or less premature where 3 Mcrc 6957/19 cause has not yet arisen and therefore the same stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to come again as and when occasion arises and if law permits.
No cost.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge (Bu) 2019.08.2 1 19:16:23 +05'30'