Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The learned Sr.APP filed counter on behalf of Respondent/Complainant, and argued that:

7 Dr.SSRB, J

8. The Discharge Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law. During the investigations on the charge sheet, the investigating officer found prima facie evidence from the incriminating material seized during the raid on the accused No.1's office and premises, which were sent to forensic department and their report has also been filed before this court and only on a thorough trial and in consideration of this trial and the facts of the case can be derived and more importantly and the contention of the commission of coercion and extortion are the irrefutable evidence to attempt to commit so can be established.

Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

14. Section 383 IPC punishable under Section 384 IPC is up to three years or fine or both. Whereas, Section 385 IPC which deals only with the even the attempt to commit extortion referred supra punishable only up to two years or fine or both. Nothing more is required to discuss on the scope of Section 385 IPC for even an attempts to put in fear in order to committing of extortion is enough. No accomplished act is contemplated there from. Thus, none of the two expressions, which are on the scope of Section 385 IPC cannot be extended to read the Section 385 IPC in view of the above. Now from this dismissal order of the learned trial Judge in Crl.M.P.No.931 of 2017 reproduced above, no way requires to be repeated, but for what it observed in para 17 incorporated supra of not detailed as to the complaint contents charge sheet, statements of witnesses, show the 14 Dr.SSRB, J accused approached the de facto complainant concerned, to consider from the charge sheet accusation with reference to the witnesses examined. LW.1-S.Srinivasa Rao, whose statement, in parmateria to the report registered as FIR no way requires reproduction, much less to discuss when it speaks of ingredients though can be contended as self serving in the absence of other corroboration from the investigation to support it. Leave about, several witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. Now mainly drawn attention of the Court to LWs.6 and 7. LW.6 is one I. Suryanarayana, a Social Worker and Secretary of KSEZ, Timmapuram Village. In his statement before the Investigating Officer what he stated is he is aware of the KSEZ setting up a port based multi-product SEZ in U.Kothapalli and Thondangi Mandals of East Godavari District, over 8,500 acres and they were carrying out agitations in the area in respect of land acquisition, yearly realization of projects to improve employment potential in the region. As part of their agitations they filed writ petitions and a PIL in AP High Court that was dismissed. During August and September 2014, one Yeleti Gopala Krishna (A.2), a resident of Kakinada, visited them and informed that he would help them in their agitation and filing of PIL against KSEZ and took him to his son-in-law/A.1/Chalasani Satya Bhaskar, who is the petitioner herein, residing at Hyderabad, who would help them in filing PIL and consequently he met Chalasani Satya Bhaskar/A.1/petitioner with A.2/Yeleti Gopala Krishna, father-in-law of A.1, at Hyderabad and 15 Dr.SSRB, J A.1 provided a guest house and car facility to LW.6 and took him to lawyers office, whom he introduced as Senior Lawyers and who would be drafting the PIL and when he enquired about various aspects of the PIL and large number of respondents, A.1 informed the LW.6 that it is necessary to bring pressure on KSEZ. Finally, in March 2015 the PIL was withdrawn without his (LW.6) consent and when he enquired A.1, he informed that it was necessary to withdraw the PIL as it would have got dismissed otherwise. Later on, LW.6 came to know that another PIL was filed on Smt. V.L. Jayaprada Devi (A.3) name and contents of the PIL were similar. He (LW.6) has not written any letters about the PIL to any authorities. LW.6 has no knowledge that A.1 was filing a PIL through them to have KSEZ cancelled while trying to get land from them. Later, LW.6 learnt that Mr.Bhaskar (A.1) and M.Yeleti Gopala Krishna (A.2) were trying to get land from KSEZ while using them (LW.6 and others) to file a PIL to get the KSEZ cancelled. This statement of the witness clearly speaks A.2, father-in-law of A.1, came to him and taken to A.1, A.1 cause filed the PIL and without even his consent it is cause withdrawn and when he questioned as it was otherwise going to be dismissed and with similar facts cause filed through A.3 another PIL and in his name representations even made for cancellation of PIL without his knowledge and the endeavour of A.1 is to get land from KSEZ while using the PIL and to get KSEZ cancelled. It is clearly revealing about 16 Dr.SSRB, J the attempt to extort KSEZ de facto complainant's entity by A.1 there from.