Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The other contention of the petitioner is that case has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC and in order to constitute an office of extortion under Section 384 of IPC, the necessary ingredients would be to intentionally put any person in fear of any enquiry to that person or to any other and dishonestly induce the person so put in fear to deliver any property. In the absence of these fundamental and necessary ingredients, the offence under Section 384 of IPC cannot be made out. In the present case, a plain reading of the statement do not indicate any ingredients of the offence under Section 384 of IPC. Hence, the very registration of the case for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC is bad in law.

10. The counsel also would vehemently contend that it is well settled position of law that in order to get jurisdiction under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. , enabling the Police to register a FIR, fundamental and mandatory requirement is that the complaint or information available before the Officer-in-charge of Police Station, must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If no such material discloses any cognizable offence, FIR cannot be registered and the criminal law cannot be set in motion. In the case on hand, when the statement of the third respondent does not disclose commission of an offence under Section 384 of IPC, it is nothing but an abuse of process and no ingredients of Section 384 of IPC which intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other and dishonestly induce the person so put in fear to deliver any property. Nowhere in the statement of the third respondent any ingredients of the offence under Section 384 of IPC is made out and hence, it is nothing but an abuse of process.

31. In the case on hand, I have already pointed out that the allegations made in the statement of respondent No.3 does not constitute the offence under Section 384 of IPC and not comes within the definition of Section 383 of IPC since, no such fear as enumerated under Section 383 of IPC is created in the mind of respondent No.3 and nowhere in his statement, he has stated that this petitioner has put him in fear and collected money but, only reference was made to his name that he met him. It is also not his case that he demanded and accepted the money or put him under any threat. Hence, the question of invoking offence under Section 384 of IPC for extortion does not arise. Hence, it is clear that criminal proceedings are manifest with malafides and the entire proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motives for wrecking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to the personal and private grudge.

33. I have already pointed out that the respondent No.3 states that he came to know through the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II that money has been recovered by the petitioner and this petitioner is not a witness to the recovery of the said amount. Hence, it is clear that, as contended, a case has been registered at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II, since a direction was given to the Inspector to take legal action, based on the statement of respondent No.3. As already pointed out, the statement of respondent No.3 does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence and none of the ingredients of offence under Section 384 of IPC. No doubt, the offence under Section 384 of IPC is a cognizable and non- bailable offence, but the statement does not disclose commission of cognizable offence. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent will not come to the aid of third respondent.