Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pooran Meena vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 20 February, 2018
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 643 / 2017
Pooran Meena S/o Kanaram, R/o 92, Bhagwan Vihar, Goner Road,
PS Kho-Nagoriyan, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment 20/02/2018 Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 01.12.2016 whereby charges were ordered to be framed against the petitioner under Section 376, 384 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC').
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence under Section 384 IPC could be said to have been committed by the petitioner. Hence, the trial Court has erred in framing charge against the petitioner under Section 384 IPC.
Section 383 IPC reads as under:-
"Extortion.--Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that 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 (2 of 2) [CRLR-643/2017] may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion"
Section 384 IPC are reads as under:-
"Punishment for extortion.--Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Thus as per the above provisions, whoever commits the offence of extortion is liable to be punished.
Prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix had been raped by the petitioner. It is also the case of the prosecutrix that the petitioner had obtained the signatures of her father-in-law by threatening him on blank papers. It is further the case of the prosecutrix that the petitioner had told her that her daughter was very beautiful and in case she permitted him to develop physical relations with her daughter, then, he would get the land transferred in her name.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial Court has rightly ordered the framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 384 IPC. However, petitioner would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to him before the trial Court, during trial.
No ground for interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J. Sudha/25