2007 Supreme(SC) 134

2007(1) Supreme 922
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh—Appellant
versus
State of Bihar & Anr.—Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3978 of 2006)
Decided on 2-2-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Kumar Parimal and P.V. Yogeswaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Gopal Singh, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. When no case has been made out for proceeding against the accused under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, while quashing the charge framed under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, the Magistrate is directed to consider the question in regard to the maintainability of the compromise petition in prosecution for offences under Sections 323, 384, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. A First Information Report as is well known, must be read in its entirety.
3. When no allegation is made that the money was paid by the informant having been put in fear of injury or putting him in such fear by the accused was intentional, no case under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 —Section 320(9)—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 323, 384, 504 rw/s 34—Compounding of offence—Power of Courts to allow compromise of a prosecution when the same is not permissible in terms of Section 320 CrPC—Prosecution for offence u/ss 323, 384, 504 rw/s 34 IPC—Parties having arrived at an amicable settlement of their dispute—Charge sheet filed on completion of investigation—On facts and circumstances of the case, no case under Section 384 IPC was made out in the First Information Report—No allegation was made that money was paid by informant having been put in fear of injury or putting him in such fear by appellant was intentional—Quashing of charge framed under Section 384 IPC which is non-compoundable offence—Magistrate directed to proceed to consider the question in regard to maintainability of compromise petition between the parties.

       Held : The Courts would have no power to allow compromise of a prosecution when the same is not permissible in terms of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure.(Para 14)

       No case has been made out for proceeding against the appellant under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. In that view of the matter, there was absolutely no reason as to why the settlement arrived at by and between the parties could not have been accepted, as the same would not come within the purview of Sub-Section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(Para 16)

       For the reasons aforementioned, while quashing the charge framed under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, we direct the learned Magistrate to proceed to consider the question in regard to the maintainability of the compromise petition between the parties in accordance with law.(Para 17)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 383 and 384—Extortion—Ingredients of offence—Distinction between theft and extortion—Parties entered into transactions relating to supply of bags—Some amount was due to appellant from the informant—Allegations that some unknown persons including appellant had come to informant and informed him that as a sum of Rs. 1500/- was due to him, he should make the payment thereof—A sum of Rs. 1580/- was said to have been taken away from his upper pocket after slapping him—No allegation that money was paid by the informant having been put in fear of injury or putting him in such fear by appellant was intentional—Informant had also not delivered any property or valuable security to appellant—No case under Section 384 IPC was made out in FIR.

       Held : A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would demonstrate that the following ingredients would constitute the offence:

       1.The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person.

       2.The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional.

       3.The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.

       4.Such inducement must be done dishonestly.

       A First Information Report as is well known, must be read in its entirety. It is not in dispute that the parties entered into transactions relating to supply of bags. The fact that some amount was due to the appellant from the First Informant, is not in dispute. The First Information Report itself disclosed that accounts were settled a year prior to the date of incident and the appellant owed a sum of about Rs.400-500 from Gautam Dubey.(Paras 6 & 7)

       According to the said Gautam Dubey, however, a sum of Rs.1500/- only was due to him. It is in the aforementioned premise the allegations that Gautam Dubey and the appellant slapped the First Informant and took out Rs.1580/- from his upper pocket must be viewed.(Paras 8 & 9)

       No allegation was made that the money was paid by the informant having been put in fear of injury or putting him in such fear by the appellant was intentional. The First Informant, admittedly, has also not delivered any property or valuable security to the appellant.(Paras 10 & 11)

       We, therefore, are of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code was made out in the First Information Report. (Para 13)

       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 383 and 384—Extortion and Theft—Distinction—Offence of extortion is carried out by over-powering the will of the owner—In commission of an offence of theft the offender’s intention is always to take without that person’s consent.(Para 12)