Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Ipc 386 in Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 September, 2023Matching Fragments
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that for deciding discharge application, it is required on the part of Magistrate to see FIR, Case Diary, Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Charge Sheet.
6. She next submitted that for submitting the charge sheet under Section 386 read with Section 383 IPC, it is required to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, but in the present case, neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is such allegation about the delivery of any valuable property as defined in Section 383 IPC. Therefore, no case is made out under Section 386 IPC. In support of his contention, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court as well as judgments of this Court in the cases of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 357, Bhupinder Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2022 1 ACR 816, Mohammad Ubaid vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30337 of 2023 on 2.8.2023 and Smt. Laxmi Devi and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Application U/S 482 No.5688 of 2018.
18. The issue before this Court is to decide as to whether from perusal of FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., any charge is made out under Sections 386, 389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC or not.
19. First of all, Court has to see about the ingredients of Section 386 read with Section 383 IPC are available in present case or not upon which charge sheet has been submitted and charges have also been framed therein.
20. To appreciate the controversy, Sections 383 and 386 IPC are quoted herebelow:-
23. Similar matter was also come up before this Court in the matter of Bhupinder Singh (Supra) wherein Court after considering the provision of Section 389 IPC in detail, held that ingredients of Section 386 IPC is not fulfilled, therefore, no case is made out under Section 386 IPC. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
"10. He further submits that no offence under Sections 386, 506 IPC is made out against the applicants and learned Magistrate has committed grave error in summoning the applicants to face the trial under the aforesaid sections.
26. In the present case too, there is no allegation either in the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about the delivery of any property as referred in Section 383 IPC. Undisputedly no delivery has ever taken place under fear or threat, which is necessary requirement for Section 383 read with Section 386 IPC. The very same interpretation has been made by the Apex Court in the matter of Isaac Isanga Musumba (Supra) as well as other judgments referred hereinabove. Therefore, in light of facts of the case, provisions of Section 383 read with Section 386 IPC, this Court is of the firm view that no case is made out for submission of charge sheet and framing charges under Section 386 IPC.