Allahabad High Court
Nizam Malik Alias Allegedly Munim ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 November, 2020
Bench: Manoj Misra, Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12013 of 2020 Petitioner :- Nizam Malik Alias Allegedly Munim Kabadi And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kashif Zaidi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Harikesh Kumar Gupta for the respondent no.4; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 30.07.2020 registered as Case Crime No.408 of 2020, under Section 386 IPC, P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
The allegations in the impugned first information report are in respect of extension of threats and demand of money (Goonda Tax) to enable running of business in scrap.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is two fold. First, that an offence punishable under Section 386 IPC is not made out because there is no specific allegation that on account of extension of threats, any goods or money was delivered to the accused or to any other person. The second is that the petitioners were earlier implicated in a case under the Gangster Act even though they had no criminal history and, therefore, to show that they have a history, a false case has been got registered against them.
In respect of the first submission, suffice it to say that a first information report ordinarily is to be quashed only if it does not disclose commission of cognizable offence. Where the first information report discloses commission of cognizable offence, the matter has to be investigated to find out whether an offence has been committed or not. If committed, as to what offence has been committed and by whom. Even assuming that there is no specific allegation with regard to delivery of goods/money on the threats extended by the accused but it is clear from the first information report that the informant side was put under life threat to pay Rs.50 lacs per month so as to enable them to run the business of scrap. In this context, assuming for the sake of arguments that an offence punishable under Section 386 IPC is not made out, an offence punishable under Section 387 IPC would still be made out because there is a fine distinction between Section 386 IPC and Section 387 IPC. Section 386 IPC deals with a person who commits extortion. Section 387 IPC deals with a person who puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to commit extortion. Section 387 IPC would apply even in a case where actual delivery of goods or money has not taken place. Section 387 IPC is a cognizable offence and likewise, criminal intimidation by extending life threat punishable under Section 506 Part-II IPC is cognizable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, in any view of the matter, the impugned first information report discloses commission of cognizable offence, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.
In respect of the second submission that the impugned first information report has been lodged only with a view to show that the petitioners are persons with bad antecedents so that the FIR against them under the Gangsters Act could be justified, suffice it to say that the impugned first information report has been lodged by a private person and not by police personnel and therefore that argument is not acceptable at all, at this stage.
Under the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report is liable to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected.
Subject to above, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.11.2020 AKShukla/-