Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vena Ram And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002WLC(RAJ)UC291, 2002(2)WLN628
JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 19.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Criminal Original Case No. 43/2001 whereby the learned Magistrate ordered to frame charges for offence under Sections 384 and 506 I.P.C. against the present accused petitioners.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
(i) That Sohan Lal lodged a written report on 17.7.2000 before the S.P. Pali stating that dispute arose between him and one Nema Ram over striking of the tractor and upon that Nema Ram called meeting of Panchas of Ghanchi Samaj and members of that Panchas threatened the complainant Sohan Lal that either he should deposit Rs. 5000/- within 1/2 hours, otherwise, he would be outcasted and since he was not in a position to pay that amount, he was humiliated by the accused petitioners and he was outcasted etc.
3. On this report, police registered a case for offence under Sections 143, 327 and 506 I.P.C. and challan was filed and the learned trial Magistrate by speaking order dated 19.7.2001 ordered to frame charges for offence under Sections 384 and 506 I.P.C. and accordingly thereafter the said charges were framed against the accused petitioners.
4. Aggrieved from the order dated 19.7.2001, this revision petition has been filed and in this revision petition, the main submission raised by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners is that since Rs. 5000/- were not paid by the complainant Sohan Lal, therefore, no case for offence under Section 384 I.P.C. was made out against the accused petitioners as the essence of offence of extortion is actual delivery of possession of property by the person put in fear and the offence is not complete before such delivery and, therefore, it has been prayed that charge for offence under Section 384 I.P.C. be quashed.
5. I have heard both the perused the record.
6. One of the ingredients for offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is that the accused thereby induced the person so put in fear to deliver to some person, some property, or valuable security or something signed or sealed, which was convertible into a valuable security.
7. As per the report lodged by the complainant, the accused petitioners threatened the complainant that he should pay Rs. 5000/- but that amount was not paid by the complaint and there is no dispute on this point. In these circumstances, the order of framing charge for offence under Section 384 I.P.C. cannot be sustained as the complainant had not parted with his money.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, this revision petition is allowed to the extent that the order of framing charge for offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is set aside and the order dated 19.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat is modified to the above extent.