Allahabad High Court
Biru Gupta @ Biru Jaali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 August, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:151982
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27570 of 2025
Biru Gupta @ Biru Jaali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Saket Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 04.09.2023 and cognizance / summoning order dated 20.11.2024, of criminal case no. 42689 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 153 of 2023, under Sections 387, 500, 504 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur, pending in the court of C.J.M., Hamirpur.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima facie case is made out against him. Alleged incident has been shown of 22.03.2023 but first information report has been lodged on 08.05.2023. It was submitted that in consequence to alleged extortion threat extended by the applicant, no delivery of payment has been taken place and thus, no prima facie case under Section 387 IPC is made out. It was further submitted that applicant has also been summoned for offence under Section 500 IPC. The cognizance for offence under Section 500 IPC can only be taken on the basis of complaint as provided under Section 199 Cr.P.C. but in the instant matter, no such complaint has been filed. Learned counsel has referred cases of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 194, Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2007) 14 SCC 768 and Isaac Isanga Musumba & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2014) 15 SCC 357 and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that there are clear allegations against the applicant that he has made demand of Rs. One lac from the informant by extending threat that in case demand is not satisfied, he would publish false facts about the informant and his business relating to mining. It was submitted that there is criminal history of four cases against the applicant. It was further submitted that even if the offence under Section 387 IPC is not made out, a prima facie case under Section 384 IPC is made out against the applicant.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.
7. In case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim (supra) it was held by Hon?ble Apex Court in para 22 as under:-
?So from the aforesaid, it is clear that one of the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury. The illustrations to the Section given in the IPC make this perfectly clear.?
8. In case of Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh (supra) it was held by Hon?ble Apex Court in para 6 as under:-
?A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would demonstrate that the following ingredients would constitute the offence :
1. The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person.
2. The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional.
3. The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.
4. Such inducement must be done dishonestly.?
9. In case of Isaac Isanga Musumba & Ors. (supra) it was held by Hon?ble Apex Court in para 4 as under:-
?4. We also find on the reading of the FIR, there is also an allegation that on 18th April, 2013 between 1 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. the accused persons illegally entered into the Head Office of the Company at Fort and demanded 20 million dollars (equivalent to Rs. 110 crores) saying that they have international arrest warrants against the complainants and upon failure to pay the said sum the complainants will have to face dire consequences. It is because of this allegation in the FIR, the offence under Section 441 Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed by the accused persons. On reading Section 441 Indian Penal Code we find that intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of property is a necessary ingredient of the offence of criminal trespass. It is not disputed that there was a business transaction between the accused persons and the complainants. Hence, if the accused persons have visited the premises of the complainants to make a demand towards their dues, we do not think a case of `criminal trespass' as defined in Section 441 Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons.?
10. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the informant has made allegations that his relative, namely Maqsood Ahmad was having a lease of mining and that applicant, who claims himself as a T.V. Journalist, came and made demand of illicit money by extending threat that he would telecast false news in T.V. channel regarding the said mining. It was further alleged that on the night of 22.03.2023 applicant has made a telephonic call to the informant and abused him and made demand of Rs. One lac by stating that if the demand was not fulfilled, he would publish false news regarding the informant and his associates and that later on informant came to know that in fact the applicant has posted some false information in his You tube channel. However there is nothing to show that any delivery of amount was made to the applicant. There are clear allegations that applicant has abused and threatened the informant and made demand of Rs. One lac from informant by extending threat that if the demand is not fulfilled, he would publish / telecast false news regarding the informant and thus, it cannot be said that no criminal offence at all is not made out. However as no delivery of any amount has taken place in pursuance of the said demand, thus, offence under Section 387 IPC is not made out against the applicant.
11. It may further be observed that applicant has also been summoned for offence under Section 500 IPC and as per provisions of Section 199 Cr.P.C., the cognizance for offence of defamation can be taken only upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved. In the instant matter there is nothing to show that any such complaint was made by the informant in terms of Section 188 Cr.P.C.
12. In view of aforesaid facts though no case for quashing of entire proceedings is made out but it appears that impugned summoning order is not in accordance with law and learned Magistrate has not considered the facts of the matter and position of law in correct perspective and impugned summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner. Accordingly the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 20.11.2024, passed by C.J.M., Hamirpur is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass an order on the point of summoning afresh, expeditiously in accordance with law.
14. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms.
(Raj Beer Singh,J.) August 28, 2025 Anand