Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Lanka Hanumantha Rao And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 29 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)ALD(CRI)986, 2005CRILJ4327
ORDER V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioners are accused Nos.. 1 to 8 in Crime No. 149 of 2002 of P.S. Chilakaluripet under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.). The de facto complainant, Rangamma, in her complaint given through the retired I.P.S. Officer alleged as under :
"...When I was preparing to take away the tractor from the police station to my 51. house after settling the problem with the RTO, was stopped on the road at Adda road by a group of people. Among them I recognized Lanka Hanumantha Rao, Thota Rama £ Krishna, Thota Seshagiri, Byra Nagamma, Polasu Nagababu, Thota Lakshmaiah, Larika Sitamma and Lanka Anjaneyulu. There were on lookers also. Suddenly Thota Lakshmaiah came towards me and asked me to put my thumb impression on one blank paper and on two printed forms. I said I would not sign because I did not owe any £ money to any body. Then he told me that my husband had borrowed Rs. 2.000/- from Lanka Hanumantha Rao. He also told me that he would get me Rs. l.000/- as con-O cession and asked me again to put my thumb impression. All the persons whose names are given above forced me to put my thumb impression on one blank paper and two blank promissory note forms. Thota Seshagiri gave me the three papers. Lanka Hanumantha Rao was along with him at that time. Thota Seshagiri told me again to put my thumb impressions on two blank promissory notes and a blank paper. After some days Thota Lakshmaiah returned to me the blank paper and one blank promissory note form on which I had put my thumb impression. These are enclosed. Lakshmaiah told me that one paper was taken by Hanumantha Rao. I understand that the blank promissory note form on which my thumb impression was obtained by force has been utilized by Hanumantha Rao to file a civil case against me in the Court. I request you to register a case and take necessary legal action against the accused.
2. On the complaint, the Police registered the case of extortion and took up investigation. The petitioners immediately approached this Court and obtained interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No. 149 of 2002. In this case filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.), for quashing the Crime, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. B. V. Krishna Rao, submits that the de facto complainant executed a promissory note based on which the first petitioner filed a suit being O.S. No. 33 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet on 12-2-2002 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 15.000/- on the basis of the promissory note executed by the de facto complainant, that the first petitioner also obtained the order of attachment before judgment attaching the Tractor bearing No. AEK 4732 of the de facto complainant and as a counter blast concocted the crime and gave a complaint on 16-6-2002 and that even the complaint filed by her does not disclose the commission of offence under Section 384 of IPC.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent (de facto complainant), Sri B. Nalin Kumar, submits that the complaint given by the fourth respondent contains an allegation that when she was taking her Tractor from the Police Station by settling the problem with the Regional Transport Officer, the petitioners accosted her and forced her to put her thumb impression on blank papers and two promissory notes, based on which the suit was filed and therefore, the allegations do contain ingredients of extortion as defined in Section 383 of IPC. He relies on Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat, 2001 (2) Andh LD (Crl) 553 (SC) : 2001 Cri LJ 4195 in support of the contention that at the stage of complaint and investigation, it is riot necessary for the complainant to use the same language used in the provision of IPC or any other provision and it is to be sufficient to give broad aspects of the Crime, which is his submission that even if the ingredients of offence to the perfection are absent with the complaint, at the stage of investigation, the complaint cannot be quashed.
4. The only point that falls for consideration is whether on a reading of the complaint by the fourth respondent, the offence of extortion is made out ?
5. To appreciate the question, it would be necessary to read Section 383 of IPC and all the four illustrations below. The said provision reads as under :
383. Extortion :- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to the 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".
IIIustrations
(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 signs and delivers the note. A has committed extortion.
(c) A threatens to send clubmen 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 signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security, A has committed extortion.
6. An offence of "extortion" must contain the following ingredients;
(i) The person who is a victim of extortion must have delivered to the accused or any other person some property or any document, which can be converted into valuable security.
(ii) Such delivery must be in pursuance of a dishonest inducement of the beneficiary or somebody on behalf of the beneficiary and
(iii) Such inducement by the accused must be with an intention to put the deliverer in fear of injury and such delivery must be as a result of such fear of injury.
7. If a person voluntarily delivers any property without there being any fear of injury, an extortion cannot be said to have been committed. Even the illustrations under Section 383 of IPC would reveal that the delivery must be pursuant to threat of injury to reputation; to the body or to the body of another person. If someone forces another person to deliver some property as alleged, without there being an element of dishonest intention to cause injury or the feeling of fear of injury in the deliverer, an offence of extortion cannot be made out. In the complaint given by the fourth respondent to Mr. M.V. Thomas, the retired I.P.S. Officer, who sent a written complaint on 15-6-2002, the element of 'fear of any injury to her" is very conspicuous by its absence. What all she said is that when she was leaving the Police Station with the Tractor, the accused stopped her and forced her to put her thumb impression on one blank paper and two promissory notes. It is also her case that after sometime Thota Lakshmaiah (accused No. 6), the sixth petitioner herein, returned one blank promissory note and one blank paper to her. If only the accused had obtained the blank white papers and blank promissory notes from the fourth respondent by intentionally putting her in fear of injury, in all probabilities there would not have been any necessity for returning two blank papers including one promissory note. This only leads to an inference that the force allegedly put on her does not in any mariner amount to fear of injury. In the absence of any such fear of injury, it would not be possible to allow the Investigating Agency to investigate the Crime, which amounts to abuse of process of law.
8. By a reason of catena of decisions, it is now axiomatic, that the power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash a crime, investigation or prosecution has to be exercised in exceptionally rare cases, inter alia, where on the face of it, the complaint does not disclose the commission of offence or the complaint is not pregnant with ingredients of such offence as defined in law. If any authority is required, a reference may be made to State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, .
9. The complaint given by the fourth respondent as seen above does not disclose offence of extortion, and therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed and Crime No. 149 of 2002 is quashed accordingly.