Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Singh @ Munna Singh vs State Of U.P Thru Secy Home Lko & Ors on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 9 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 29665 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh @ Munna Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Secy Home Lko & Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Paritosh Shukla,Siyaram Maurya,Sukh Deo Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajeshwar Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the FIR No. 865 of 2018, registered with Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, for the offence under Section 386 IPC.
Learned counsel submits that bare perusal of the FIR does not disclose any offence under Section 383 IPC. In view of the above, FIR deserves to be quashed. A reference of the interim order passed by this Court dated 09.01.2019 has been given where the meaning of extortion has been explained by referring the judgment of the Apex Court. The respondents were directed to give counter affidavit. In response to it, counter affidavit has been filed but it has not been explained as to how an offence under Section 386 IPC is made out. Accordingly, FIR be quashed.
Learned AGA submits that after the investigation, case was found against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 387 IPC and accordingly chargesheet has been sent. The perusal of the FIR shows an offence under Section 387 IPC, thus now on filing of the chargesheet, no interference in the FIR be made.
We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The perusal of the FIR reveals demand of a sum of rupees 10 lacs from the complainant and in absence of satisfaction to face dire consequences which includes killing of the family. According to the petitioner, no offence is disclosed in the FIR, whereas we find that an offence is made out under Section 387 IPC. It is necessary to clarify that even Section 283 IPC defining the extortion does not require actual delivery of property or valuable security but inducement of the person to put in fear to deliver the property or valuable security. The contents of the FIR discloses an offence and now the chargesheet for the offence under Section 387 IPC has been filed. It is not under Section 386 IPC for which interim order was passed.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid, we do not find that a case is made out for interference in the FIR. This Court cannot examine as to which offence has been committed in reference to the incidence disclosed in the FIR. That is the jurisdiction of the trial court while framing charges. The challenge to the FIR can be adjudicated in reference to the judgment the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in [AIR 1992 SC 604] and not with analysis as to which offence is made out in reference to the FIR.
In view of the above and the discussion made by us, writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019 kkv/