Bombay High Court
Md. Arif S/O Abdul Shakur Rangoonwala ... vs Sate Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Tehsil Nagpur ... on 30 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5119-DB
1 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 409 OF 2023
1. Md. Arif s/o Abdul Shakur
Rangoonwala
Aged 70 years, Occ: Business,
2. Md. Haris s/o Arif Rangoonwala,
Aged 36 years, Occ: Business,
3. Md. Zain s/o Arif Rangoonwala,
Aged 31 years, Occ: Business,
Nos. 1 to 3 All R/o 140, RMS Colony
Jaffer Nagar, Nagpur. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Officer, Police
Station Tehsil, Nagpur City.
2. Asad Ali Hifajat Hussain,
Aged Major, Occ: Business,
R/o House No.90, Sadikabad Colony,
New Passport Office, Mankapur,
Nagpur Tahsil and District Nagpur. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. Nazim Qureshi, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. Javed Sheikh, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------
2 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 30th MARCH, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present Application is preferred by the Applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.81/2023 registered with Police Station Tahsil, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 385, 387, 447, 427, 506(2) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No. 971/2026.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who submitted that the crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2 Asad Ali Hifajat Hussain on an allegation that his father has obtained the disputed property 3 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt i.e. shop situated at Mominpura since 1960. After the death of the original owner he was paying the rent to the wife of the original owner namely Khurshid Bhagwaghar. Thereafter his father has purchased the said shop but the present Applicants have raised the dispute about the ownership of the said shop, and therefore, the suit was filed bearing No. 736/2000 before the Civil Court. It is alleged that, the said suit is still pending before the Civil Court and on that count which the Applicant No.1 used to threatened him and on 07.12.2022 also he has visited his shop and abused him in a filthy language and demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from him and threatened him that if the amount is not paid he will him by firing bullets. On the basis of the said report Police have registered the crime against the present Applicants.
5. During investigation the Investigating Officer has recorded the relevant statements of witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the present Applicants.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who submitted that due to the civil dispute between the parties as to 4 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt the ownership of the said shop the present crime is registered against the present Applicants. He submitted that, only to obtain the custody of the said shop in easy way, this complaint is registered against the present Applicants. He submitted that, as there is no delivery of property, and therefore, the offence under Sections 383, 385 of IPC were not made out. He submitted that, the allegations regarding threatening is not substantiated by any independent material, and therefore, the Application deserves to be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that, to attract the offence punishable under Section 387 of IPC, the delivery of property is not required. It is further submitted that, there is a dispute as to the ownership of the said property and the civil suit is already pending. It is further submitted that, the delivery of property is not essential for the purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 387 of IPC.
8. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 that, preparation is also sufficient to attract 5 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt the offence. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Balaji Traders Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors., MANU/SC/0814/2025, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the scope of Sections 383, 384, 385, 386 and 387 of IPC and also distinguished the said Sections and it is held that, the delivery of property is not at all a requirement to attract the offence punishable under Section 387 of IPC. He submitted that, there are various offences registered against the present Applicants. Thus, considering the criminal antecedents, the Application deserves to be rejected.
9. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire investigation papers it reveals that the dispute between the present Applicants and the Non-applicant No.2 is on account of shop, which according to the complainant is purchased by him from the original owner Smt. Khurshid Bhagwagar in 2006 for a consideration of Rs. 70,000/-, whereas the Applicant No.1 has also claimed the ownership and has filed the civil suit against the Non-applicant No.2. It is alleged that on 07.12.2022, the present Applicant No.1 alongwith other Applicants visited the shop of the Non-applicant No.2 and threatened him to face 6 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt the dire consequences if the said shop is not handed over to him. During investigation the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses including the employees of the Non-applicant No.2 who were present at the relevant time in the said shop. The statements substantiates the incident that on 07.12.2022 the present Applicants had been to the shop and threatened them with a dire consequences. There is a statement of Mohd. Hussain Rahmatullah Ansari and Hunaid Taiyyar Abudl Taiyyar contending all these aspects.
10. Now, the question will be whether the ingredients of the offence are made out. Section 383 of IPC defines Extortion and the ingredients of the offence are:(i) the accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person;
(ii) the putting of a person in such fear must be intentional; (iii) 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; and (iv) such inducement must be done dishonestly.
11. Before a person can be said to put any person in fear of any injury to that person, it must appear that he has held out 7 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future. If all that a man does is to promise to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do and says that if money is not paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an offence of extortion.
12. However, perusal of Section 387 of IPC reveals its essential ingredients, to be : (a) Accused must have put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt; (b) Such an act must have been done in order to commit extortion;
The expression 'in order to' has been defined in the following ways:
"in order to" : for the purpose of "in order to" with the purpose of doing 'in order to commit extortion' clearly reveals that it is in the process of committing the offence of extortion.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para 14, which reads as under:
"14. Thus, it can be said in terms of Section 386 (an aggravated form of 384 Indian Penal Code) and 387 Indian Penal Code that the former is an act in itself, whereas the latter is the process; it is a stage before committing an offence of extortion. The Legislature was mindful enough 8 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt to criminalize the process by making it a distinct offence. Therefore, the commission of an offence of extortion is not sine qua non for an offence under this Section. It is safe to deduce that for prosecution under Section 387 Indian Penal Code, the delivery of property is not necessary."
14. By referring the judgment of Radha Ballabh Vs. State of U.P., MANU/SC/1128/1995, the Hon'ble Apex Court observes that while dealing with a case wherein ransom was demanded for releasing the child, observed that it could not be punishable under Section 386 Indian Penal Code as no ransom was extorted. Therefore, the conviction was correctly made under Section 387 Indian Penal Code.
15. Similarly, in Somasundaram Vs. State, MANU/SC/0467/2020, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court upheld the conviction under Section 387 Indian Penal Code, 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 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 Indian Penal Code is 9 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt a heightened, more serious form of the offence of extortion in which the victim is put in fear of death or grievous hurt.
16. After going through the penal provisions related to extortion, it is also imperative to peruse the necessary principles of quashing, laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court through various judicial pronouncements which govern the jurisdiction of the Apex Court as well as this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.
17. The parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Harayana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 AIR 604, while considering the Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
"(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.
10 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a 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."
18. By applying the above said principles to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the recitals of the FIR as well as the statements of various witnesses shows that there was dispute between the present Applicant No.1 and the Non-applicant No.2 on account of the said shop. The civil dispute is also pending between them. The Applicants allegedly visited the said shop and threatened the Non-applicant No.2 to face the dire consequences. Thus, the offence punishable under Section 387 of IPC is primarily made out against the present 11 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt Applicants. In view of that, the scope of the provision which if taken into consideration, admittedly, the delivery of the property is not an essential ingredient in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and therefore, for the two separate offences, distinct ingredients and punishment are there. In view of that, prima facie case is made out against the present Applicants, and therefore, Application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER i. Criminal Application is rejected.
19. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) S.D.Bhimte Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/04/2026 18:31:28