Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Through the above mentioned petitions the legality as well as validity of the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2002 passed by Ms. Kamini Lau, Metropolitan Magistrate has been challenged.

2. Bare facts and perusal of the order show that erroneous approach has been adopted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in not accepting the report submitted by the Investigating Officer for closure of the case due to insufficiency of evidence and that no case of extortion and criminal intimidation as punishable under Sections 386/506/34 IPC is made out against the petitioners who are Senior Doctors of Mool Chand Hospital. They have been accused of forcing the respondent Dr. Rajiv Johri to submit resignation else his services would be terminated and employing threat that if he would not resign, they would send letters to all the hospitals informing about his termination and thereby he would not get job anywhere.

3. This act on their part has been brought by the MM within the mischief of "extortion" and "criminal intimidation". Offence under Section 386 IPC punishes a person who puts any other person in fear of death or grievous hurt for the purpose of dishonestly inducing the person to deliver to him any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security. Offence under Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for "criminal intimidation". Mischief of "criminal intimidation" means giving threat with an intention to cause any injury to any person or his reputation or property.

8. Aforesaid conspectus of facts manifestly demonstrate that the learned MM proceeded entirely on the presumptive and conjectural premise that management being in much advantageous and dominant position appears to have forced the respondent to resign and thereby committed offences under Sections 386/506/34 IPC.

9. I am afraid if such cases are allowed to be registered and taken cognizance, then no employer would be safe and loose his authority to have effective control over their employees or take decisions in the interests of the organisation. What was expected from the learned MM was at first instance to find out whether allegations made by the complainant make offences punishable under Sections 386/506/34 IPC or not. Instead of going into the ingredients of the offences, the learned MM rushed to the conclusion that the conduct of the management of the hospital forcing its employee to submit resignation is criminal and in violation of public policy. I fail to understand how does the element of public policy come in in a criminal act of a person. As is apparent even further investigation made by independent Agency did not find sufficient evidence and asked for closure of the case. Since the Magistrate has no power to direct the Investigating Agency/Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to file the chargesheet, learned MM on the basis of material contained in the final report for closure of the case took the cognizance of offences against the petitioners and summoned them.

16. Let us examine the ingredients of Sections 386 and 506 IPC.

17. Section 386 IPC reads as under:-

"386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt to.- Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

18. Bare reading of Section 386 IPC shows that this provision comes into play when any person commits 'extortion' by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other person. Mischief of "Extortion" has been defined in Section 383 IPC. It reads as under:-