The court upheld that a prima facie case of extortion was established based on the FIR, emphasizing that the merits of the case should be evaluated during trial, not at the quashing stage.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee , J.

1. The instant application has been directed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceeding of Basirhat P.S. Case no. 256 dated 03.06.2018 under section 384/389/34 of the Indian Penal code. The FIR maker/opposite party no.2 alleged in the F.I.R about extortion by putting her in fear of accusation of rape against her son.

2. On the basis of complaint aforesaid criminal proceeding was initiated and thereafter on completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners under section 384/389/34 of the Indian Penal Code and learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of the offence alleged therein and further pleased to supply the copies to the accused persons under section 207 of the Code and the instant case is presently pending for framing of charges before the trial court.

3. Being aggrieved by the said proceeding, Mr. Jha learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that on the alleged date of incident i.e. on 04.02.2018 the petitioner no.1 and the son of opposite party no.2 were sharing a cordial and healthy relationship and till that date, the proposal for marriage was not cancelled. The document revealed that on 04.02.2018 they were exchanging photograph of their rooms to finalize its decoration as appearing from the screenshot of chatting between the son of opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner no.1, which are made as annexure P2.

4. Thereafter relationship between the petitioner no.1 and the son of opposite party no.2 detoriated and the son of opposite party no.2 stopped all communication and denied to marry petitioner no.1. Petitioner no. 1 had made several attempts to contact the son of opposite party no. 2 but could not make any communication. Finding no other alternative on May, 27, 2018 the petitioner no. 1 lodged complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police New Delhi Interalia making allegation against the son of opposite party no. 2 under section 376/328/354/506/509 of the Indian Penal code.

5. After getting intimation about the written complaint the son of opposite party no. 2 immediately rushed to New Delhi and tried to persuade the petitioner no.1 to withdraw the case, as appearing from Whats App chats.

6. The brother of the opposite party no.2 also spoke with petitioner no.1 on May 27, 2018. It further transpires from the register of Hotel, Cannaught Place, New Delhi, that on and after 25.05.2018 the son of opposite party no. 2 went to New Delhi, which is immediately before and after lodging of complaint by the petitioner no.1.

7. The specific alibi taken by the petitioners is that on the date of alleged occurrence they were staying elsewhere as has been clearly reflected in the investigation report in the form of the charge sheet, in connection with Barakhmba P.S. case no. 58 dated 26.05.2018.

8. It reveals that the petitioner no. 1 along with her parents and brother remained present whole day at Kailana Khas Gurudwara on the alleged day i.e. on 04.02.2018 and discussed the Roka Ceremony with the priest but no Roka Ceremony had taken place on that day. The tower locations as well as the video recordings collected during investigation of Barakhamba Police Station, clearly goes to show that the son of the opposite party no. 2 met the petitioner no.1 between 25.05.2018 to 28.05.2018.

9. Mr. Jha strenuously argued that the statements/discussions/chats as well as the conduct of the son of opposite party no.2 after lodging of the complaint at Barakhamba Police Station itself goes to show that the present case is a false one and has been made out for wreaking vengeance and is a counterblast when the petitioner no.1 did not withdraw the case at New Delhi. He further submits that man may lie but the scientific evidences collected during investigation in the said case cannot be overlooked by the court. He further pointed out that the statements recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. made by the witnesses are inconsistent with the