that on
09.03.2013 the Special Cell received an intimation regarding an
extortion call made to the Informant/Respondent No.2 (Mukesh
Aggarwal) from an Idea ... Jain kept calling him all the time. He
took Vinay Jain‟s call and told him that he had received an extortion
call. If this
extortion
was made by the Editors of defendant No. 1 in conspiracy with the
chairman of defendant No.1. This extortion call, it is said
Oral)
Petitioner remains unrepresented despite the fact that case has
been called out twice since morning.
Petitioner has sought quashing ... opposed by learned State counsel. According
to him, accused made certain extortion calls demanding Rs.20 lacs failing
which objectionable material relating to complainant would
Panchkula.
According to the allegations in the FIR the complainant faced
extortion calls from one Kala Hangola pursuant to which another co-
accused namely Johny
card bearing
No. 9708204506 from where the alleged extortion call was made.
He submits that neither the mobile number belongs to the
petitioner
learned counsel for the petitioner
that the SIM Card from which extortion calls were made is alleged to
have been purchased from the shop
prosecution case is that the informant and his
nephew received extortion call. The caller is said to be one Vikas.
In case of non-payment ... life threatening was given. Thereafter, the
extortion call came on 28.6.2015 which was received by the staff
of the informant namely Arvind Kumar Singh. Subsequently
Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that the extortion call was made
on the mobile of the informant being an MLA and life threat
Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that the extortion call was made
on the mobile of the informant being an MLA and life threat
prosecution case is that the informant being a
doctor received an extortion call through mobile.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners
