Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Biram Lal And Ors. vs State on 1 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: RLW2007(1)RAJ713
JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J.
1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nasirabad District Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 685/2003 whereby he has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners and framed the charges against them for the offences under Sections 384 and 506 IPC.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 16.9.2003 complainant Laxmi Narain lodged a report at Police Station Mangaliawas Distt. Ajmer alleging therein that he is a member of Prajapat community. Some persons of the community have constituted an illegal organization which is indulging in humiliating the members of the community. They have also imposed heavy fines. It is alleged that the persons named in the First Information Report including the petitioners have been torturing the complainant for last about 10 years on account of the marriage of his sister Bhanwari Devi. His father was humiliated and kept standing in the sun for hours in the presence of 150-200 persons and was imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- directing him to deposit the same in Pushkar temple. The persons of the community have been warned not to keep relations with him and his family. It is further alleged that they have now directed him to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lac for his re-entry into the community. On the basis of the aforesaid report, an F.l.R. No. 181/2003 was registered for the offences under Sections 384, 385, 388, 389, 500 and 143 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 384 and 506 IPC. The petitioners moved an application before the learned Magistrate praying therein to recall the order of taking cognizance and to drop the proceedings against them. But the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.10.2005 and charges were framed against them for the offences under Sections 384 and 506 IPC as indicated above. Hence, this revision petition.
3. It is contended by their learned Counsel that no offence what-so-ever has been made out from the materials available on record. It is further contended that as per the allegations in the First Information Report, the incident too, place between the period 1993 and 1997. The alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for not more than three years and, therefore, the cognizance for these offences having been taken beyond the period of three years, the same is un-sustainable as it was time barred under the provisions of Section 468 IPC. Learned Counsel has referred to the cases of Khalil and Ors. v. State of Raj. and Anr. 2002 WLC (Raj.) UC 290 and Vena Ram and Ors. v. The State of Raj. 2002 WLC (Raj.) UC 291.
4. Learned PP has opposed the contentions. He has submitted that the learned court below has rightly framed the charges against the accused persons. According to him the authorities referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on facts.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the relevant documents placed before me as also the authorities referred to above.
6. It may be stated at the outset that in Khalil and ors. v. State of Rajasthan (supra), this Court was considering whether the Resolution excommunicating the petitioners amounted to an offence under Section 500 IPC. No such case is under consideration in the instant petition.
7. It is true that in Vena Ram and Ors. v. The State of Raj. (supra) it is held that charge under Section 384 IPC is not sustainable if the property is not delivered by the person extorted and in the instant case also no property is alleged to have been delivered by the persons extorted to the accused petitioners.
8. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners it would be pertinent to reproduce Section 383 IPC which defines "extortion" and it reads as under:
Section 383. 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 may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid Section makes it plain that the emphasis is on the words dishonestly induces a person" and not on the words to deliver to any person."
Illustration (a) appended to the aforesaid Section makes it all the more clear. It is reproduced as under:
(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.
9. In Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. a boy was kidnapped and threatening letters demanding ransom were sent to his father stating that unless ransom was paid they would murder the boy. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is kidnapping and extortion.
10. Section 383IPC defines 'extortion' whereas Section 384IPC is the penal section for extortion whereas Section 385 IPC Is for attempt to commit extortion. In order to complete the act of extortion the person who was put In fear, must have been Induced to deliver the property. If the act of Inducement caused by the wrong doer should bring forth Its result at least by the victim consenting to deliver property even If actual delivery does not take place due to any fortuitous circumstances which would constitute extortion, but If It falls to produce the requisite effect, the act would remain only at the stage of attempt to commit extortion. In the instant case, even if the offence of extortion is held to be not made out for want of delivery of the property atleast, the offence of attempt to commit extortion is clearly made out, as has been held in the case of Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State .
11. It appears that this significant aspect of the matter has not been canvassed before the learned Judge in the case of Vena Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and no considered view has been expressed on this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment is per incuriam and no order of discharge can be passed on its basis in the instant case.
12. The question of limitation though mentioned in the petitioner has not been pressed probably in view of the law laid down in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale and Anr. v. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559 wherein it has been held that a cumulative reading of various provisions of Chapter XXXVI Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the limitation prescribed therein is only for filing of the complaint or initiation of the prosecution and not for taking cognizance.
13. In the instant case the complaint was lodged on 16.9.2003 with the allegation that accused petitioners were torturing the complainant for last about 10 years.
14. The learned court below has clearly found on the materials on record that the alleged offences are prima facie disclosed, I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order directing framing of charges against the petitioners. As such, there is no valid and cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order in. exercise of limited powers of revision of this Court.
15. Consequently, this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file an application before the concerned court for alteration of the charge, if so advised and in case such an application is filed the learned trial Court shall decide the same without being unduly influenced by the factum of dismissal of the revision petition by this Court. If is also made clear that the observations made hereinabove for deciding the revision petition shall not adversely affect the final judgment of the case.