Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack as per the direction and observation of the order dated 13.05.2016 passed in CRLREV No.98 of 2016, considered the matter afresh and has been pleased to observe that the ingredients of the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act are not attracted. Similarly it was observed that the materials on record do not constitute the offence under section 3(2)(vi) of the 1989 Act against petitioner Sarathi Baba, however, it was held that the ingredients of the offence under section 3(1)(w)(i) of 1989 Act is well made out against petitioner Sarathi Baba and accordingly, the impugned order was passed observing that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner Sarathi Baba under sections 384/ 506/ 211/ 120-B/ 342/ 343/ 365/ 508/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(w)(i) of the 1989 Act for taking cognizance of such offences. It was further held that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner Manjulata Swain @ CBI Madam and Mili @ Subhalaxmi Pati under sections 384/ 506/ 211/ 120-B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code for taking cognizance of such offences.

(i) Cognizance of offence under section 384 IPC:-

While attacking taking of cognizance of offence under section 384 of the Indian penal Code, it was contended by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the ingredients of offence are not attracted.
The learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that by persuading the victim to write an F.I.R against four innocent persons was with a view to put those persons under a state of blackmailing and therefore, the document prepared by the victim at the behest of the accused persons had got the effect of being converted to a valuable security and therefore, the ingredients of the offence under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is squarely attracted.
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for "extortion" which is defined under section 383 of the Indian Penal Code. Intentionally putting any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security is called "extortion". It is required to be proved that the victim was induced to part with the property or valuable security by putting her in fear of injury. "Valuable security" is defined in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code which denotes a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.
Thus I am of the view that prima facie ingredients of offence under section 508 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner Sarathi Baba.
Conclusions:-
13. In view of the foregoing analysis of the relevant provisions of law and the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that prima facie ingredients of offences punishable under sections 365, 506, 508, 342, 343 read with section 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(vi) of S.C. and S.T. (P & A) Act, 1989 are clearly made out against the petitioner Santosh Kumar Roul @ Srimad Sarathi Dev @ Sarathi Baba. Similarly I am of the considered view that prima facie ingredients of offences punishable under sections 506 read with section 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly made out against the petitioner Manjulata Swain and co-accused Mili @ Subhalaxmi Pati. The ingredients of offences under sections 384 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out against any of the accused persons and ingredients of offence under section 3(1)(w)(i) of S.C. and S.T. (P & A) Act, 1989 are not made out against petitioner Santosh Kumar Roul @ Srimad Sarathi Dev @ Sarathi Baba and therefore, cognizance of such offences are quashed.