Bombay High Court
Md. Arif S/O Abdul Shakur Rangoonwala ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 30 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5326-DB
38s[;408.2023.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 408 OF 2023
APPLICANTS :- 1) Md. Arif s/o Abdul Shakur
Rangoonwala, Aged 70 years,
Occu: Business.
2) Md. Haris s/o Arif Rangoonwala,
Aged 36 years, Occu: Business.
3) Md. Zain s/o Arif Rangoonwala,
Aged 31 yeas, Occu: Business,
Nos. 1 to 3 all r/o 140 RMS Colony
Jaffer Nagar, Nagpur.
..VERSUS..
NON-APPLICANT :- 1) State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Tehsil, Nagpur City.
Complainant 2) Mohd. Safar s/o Haji Haider Ali,
Aged Major, Occu: Business,
R/o Lodhipura, Behind Lal School,
Subhan Seth Wada, Ganeshpeth,
Nagpur, Tahsil and District Nagpur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nazim Qureshi, counsel for applicants.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for non-applicant/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATE : 30/03/2026
rkn
38s[;408.2023.odt
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for non-applicant / State.
3. The present application is preferred by the applicants for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No. 82 of 2023 registered with Police Station Officer, Police Station Tehsil, Nagpur City, for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 385, 387, 447, 427, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the consequent proceedings arising out of the same, bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 972 of 2026, pending before the 12th Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, who submitted that there was a civil dispute between the present applicants and the non-applicant No.2. It is contended that the FIR came to be lodged out of the civil dispute. He further submitted that the allegations is not substantiated by any rkn 38s[;408.2023.odt 3 material, as far as the delivery of the property is concerned, in view of that, the offence under Sections 384, 385 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is not made out. He also submitted that the offence under Section 387 is also not made out, as the allegations regarding threat is not substantiated by any material and therefore, in the absence of any prima-facie case, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors . reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the application deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed the said contentions and invited my attention towards the various statements of the witnesses. It is submitted that, considering the allegations levelled against the present applicants and the criminal antecedents against the present applicants, the application deserves to be rejected.
6. Leaned counsel and learned APP also invited my attention towards the statements of the witnesses, who are the eye-witnesses of this incident. It is submitted that, to attract the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian rkn 38s[;408.2023.odt 4 Penal Code, the delivery of the property is not relevant ingredient, and mere threatening to face the dire consequences is also sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 387 of the IPC, and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 placed reliance on the decision of M/s Balaji Traders Vs State of U.P. and another reported in 2025 INSC 806.
8. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the entire investigation papers, it reveals that there was a dispute between the applicants and the non-applicant No.2 regarding the property, and prior disputes was also there. As per the allegations by the complainant, Mujib Footwear shop is owned by his father and was initially taken on rental basis. After the death of the original owner, he is started paying rent to the wife of the original owner and thereafter, his father has purchased the said shop. However, as the shop was situated in a disputed portion and therefore, the applicant Mohd. Aarif started harassing him and also instituted a suit against him. rkn 38s[;408.2023.odt 5
9. It is further reveals from the recitals of the FIR that there are criminal antecedents against the applicants, and to obtain the custody of the said shop, the dispute arose between them. It is specifically alleged that on 30/12/2022, the applicant Mohd. Aarif Rangonwala and others also came in his shop, demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- from him and threatened the complainant with dire consequences and therefore, the FIR came to be lodged. This incident is substantiated by the statements of the various witnesses including the statement of Mohd. Mujib Ashraf Mohd. Safar Ansari, Mohd. Nadaim Mohd. Saajid, who were present at the time of the incident. Thus, the allegation is substantiated by the statements of these witnesses.
10. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 has rightly relied upon the judgment of M/s Balaji Traders (supra) wherein the Apex Court has considered the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 383, 384 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that whether the actual delivery of property or valuable security is a necessary ingredient for the offense under Section 387 of rkn 38s[;408.2023.odt 6 the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is held that the actual delivery of property or valuable security is not the necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 387 of IPC. The Apex Court has clarified the distinction between the various sections related to extortion in the IPC and it is held that while Sections 383, 384, 386 and 388 deals with the actual commission of extortion where property is delivered. Sections 385, 387 and 389 punish acts committed in order to commit extortion.
11. Even if extortion itself is not completed or property is not delivered, the phrase "in order to commit extortion"
signifies a preparatory stage. Therefore, for an offence under Section 387 IPC, putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt is sufficient, and the non-delivery of money or property does not negate the charge. The Court also emphasized the strict interpretation of penal statutes, stating that no additional conditions or ingredients not prescribed by the statute should be read into it.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court by referring the relevant sections, and observed that Section 383 defines extortion, the rkn 38s[;408.2023.odt 7 punishment therefore is given in Section 384. Sections 386 and 388 provide for an aggravated forms of extortion involving the actual commission. Whereas, Sections 385, 387 and 389 IPC seeks to punish for an act committed for the purpose of extortion, even though the act of extortion may not be complete and property not delivered. It is in the process of committing an offence that a person is put in fear of injury, death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion. Section 387 IPC provides for a stage prior to committing extortion, which is putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt 'in order to commit extortion', similar to Section 385 IPC. Hence, Section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of Section 385 IPC, not 384 IPC.
13. By referring the various judgments including the judgment of Radha Ballabh Vs State of U.P. reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 119 and Somasundaram Vs State reported in (2020) 7 SCC 722, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court upheld the conviction under Section 387 IPC, along with other provisions, on the facts, where the deceased was tied with an iron chain and rope to a cot and threatened to part rkn 38s[;408.2023.odt 8 with crores of rupees or else execute the document in their favour. On his failure to do so, the deceased was killed. Thus, even though there was no delivery of property, the conviction was upheld by observing that Section 387 IPC is a heightened, more serious form of the offence of extortion in which the victim is put in fear of death or grievous hurt.
14. In the light of the above observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, admittedly the delivery of property is not an essential ingredient to attract the offence punishable under Sections 384, 385, 387 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
15. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.N. John, Vs State of U.P. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 7] wherein the several principles of quashing criminal case are laid down which are as under :-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the rkn 38s[;408.2023.odt 9 following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a rkn 38s[;408.2023.odt 10 non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
16. By applying the above said principles to the facts of the present case, admittedly the prima-facie case is made out against the present applicants, in view of that, the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the rkn 38s[;408.2023.odt 11 following order:
ORDER a] The criminal application is rejected.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) rkn