SANJAY K AGRAWAL, J.

1. The petitioner is an accused standing trial for offence punishable under Sections 384 & 385 of the IPC and seeks quashment of charges framed against him for the aforesaid offences which was affirmed by the revisional court in a revision preferred by him.

2. Mr. Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the learned trial Magistrate as well as the learned revisional Court, both are absolutely unjustified in holding that offence under Sections 384 & 385 of the IPC are made out, as there is no allegation of payment of demanded amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner by Chandrakanti Patel and Uma Shankar Patel, respectively, and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

3. Learned State counsel would, however, support the impugned order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25-4-2015 at Village Temar, the petitioner demanded Rs. 50,000/- from complainant Chandrakanti Patel to prevent from boycotting her and thereafter to join her in his caste and on