Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.29. So far as Section 384 IPC is concerned, the petitioner has been charged under the same for extortion. In order to invoke Section 384 IPC, two things are mandated namely, intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another and dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023 person any property or valuable security. Section 384 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) deals with punishment for extortion. According to Section 384 IPC, whoever commits or does extortion shall be punished or will be held with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine, or with both, and also as per the facts of the cases as per section 384 IPC. Insofar as the present case on hand is concerned, the perusal of the statement relied upon by one Kamalavalli/L.W.2 would show that she never made any allegation as against the petitioner to bring home the ingredients of Section 384 IPC. Since Kamalavalli completely goes back on her previous statement and in her second statement, she states that she went on a pilgrimage voluntarily, without considering the reliability of the statements of Kamalavalli, the charge is framed in a mechanical manner and the charge framed under 384 IPC is also baseless. The learned trial Judge has gone forward to frame charges without the necessary ingredients to establish an offence under Sections 347 and 384 of IPC, which resulted in total non application of mind.

6.3. On 08.12.2009, A.Kamalavalli, the third accused in Cr.No.26 of 2009 went missing and “a woman missing case” was registered by Tirupur North Police Station on 09.12.2009 under Cr.No.3068 of 2009 at the instance of her driver.

6.4. The said Kamalavalli came on 11.12.2009 and on 14.02.2010, she gave a representation to the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupur alleging that she was kidnapped on 08.12.2009 and an amount of Rs.3 Crores was extorted from her Company by three police officers viz., Rajendran-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupur; Mohanraj-Inspector of Police, CCB Tirupur; & E.Shanmugaiah, formerly Inspector, CCB Tirupur and a private individual namely, Annachi @ John Prabakar. On 15.02.2010, the Sections of woman missing case in Cr.No.3068 of 2009 was altered to Sections 323, 353, 365, 384 of IPC and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023 Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002.

23.5. In the present case on hand, even as per the charge sheet, as well as the status report dated 17.10.2023, the sanctioning authority failed to note the fact that the investigating authority has not proved the act of illegal gain by the petitioner.

Section 8 of PC Act has been invoked against the petitioner which is unsustainable as he is a public servant which has not been taken into account by the sanctioning authority prior to grant sanction for prosecuting him. Without any material on record to show the fact https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023 that the petitioner has abetted an offence under Section 8 of PC Act, Section 10 has been invoked by the respondent as against the petitioner, which is per se illegal. Since the investigating authority has failed to any receipt of illegal gratification, as well as money trail pertaining to the petitioner, the sanction granted by the State Government to prosecute the petitioner under Section 197(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. is arbitrary and illegal. Moreover, as threat and extortion with illegal gain has not been established as per Section 383 IPC, Section 384 IPC does not attracts. Summing the above, proves the sanction granted against the petitioner is bad in law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023 23.9. Insofar as Section 347 IPC is concerned, no wrongful confinement was ordered by the petitioner in respect of L.W.8, as it was only for the purpose of investigation and hence, Section 347 does not attract. In respect of Section 384 IPC, there was neither any threat nor extortion of property by the petitioner and the same was not established through money trial by the prosecution as per the status report dated 17.10.2023 which implies that investigation with respect to money trial is still ongoing as there is no conclusive evidence and therefore, the allegation under Sections 383 and 384 of IPC is groundless.