Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Reference has also been made to Rajesh (supra) with emphasis being made on paragraph 5 of the said judgment which for convenience is referred as follows:
"5. We are afraid that the first information report registered against the applicant cannot be quashed on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the applicant. Section 383 of the Penal Code defines extortion. It is no doubt true that for committing an offence of extortion, a person should put the other person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly induce the other person to deliver any property or valuable security to the person who puts the other person in fear of injury. Section 384 of the Penal Code provides for the punishment for extortion. We are however, concerned with Section 385 of the Penal Code as the offence is registered against the applicant under the said Section. Section 385 may come into play before the offence of extortion is committed. The said provision could be attracted in a case where a person, in order to commit extortion puts any other person in fear or attempts to put any person in fear of any injury. The ingredients of the offence under Section 385 of the Penal Code could be satisfied when, with a view to commit extortion or in order to commit extortion a person puts any other person in fear or attempts to put the other person in fear of any injury. The punishment for extortion is provided under Section 384 of the Penal Code whereas the punishment for putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion is provided under Section 385 of the Code and the said punishment is lesser than the punishment for extortion. Section 385 of the Code provides the punishment for an attempt to commit extortion, when the attempt has failed to induce the delivery of the property or valuable security. In an offence punishable under Section 385, the threat or intimidation is intended to induce the delivery of the property but without success. In the instant case, though the non-applicant no. 2 had not parted with the property or valuable security, as the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was allegedly demanded by the applicant and the non-applicant was allegedly put in fear of injury the offence punishable under Section 385 could be registered against the applicant."

The complainant/opposite party has also referred to Biram Lal (supra) and drawn the attention to paragraph 10 of the said judgment which is as follows:

"10. Section 383 IPC defines 'extortion' whereas Section 384 IPC 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 fails 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: AIR 1960 SC 154."