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 the same day, the petitioner also demanded Rs. 5,000/- from Uma Shankar Patel for the same purpose.

6. Sections 383 and 384 of the IPC provide as under: -

"383. Extortion.-Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces 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, commits "extortion".

384. Punishment for extortion.-Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

7. The Supreme Court in the matter of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and another, (1986) AIR SC 2045, while considering the issue as to when offence under Section 383 of the IPC is made out, held that before a person can be said to put any person to fear of any injury to that person, it must appear that he has held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down the ingredients of offence under Section 383 of the IPC as under: -

"The main ingredients of the offence are :

(i) the accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person;

(ii) the putting of a person in such fear must be intentional;

(iii) 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; and

(iv) such inducement must be done dishonestly."

8. Their Lordships agreeing with the principle of laid down in the matter of Habibul Razak v. Emperor, (1924) AIR Allahabad 197 held as under: -

"Before a person can be said to put any person to fear of any injury to that person, it must appear that he has held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future. If all that a man does is to promise to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do and says that if money is not paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an offence of extortion. We agree with this view which has been indicated in Habibul Razak v. Emperor, (1924) AIR Allahabad 197 . There is no evidence at all in this case that the managements of the sugar co- operatives had been put in any fear and the contributions had been paid in response to threats. Merely because the respondent was Chief Minister at the relevant time and the sugar co-operatives had some of their grievances pending consideration before the Government and pressure was brought about to make the donations promising consideration of such grievances, possibly by way of reciprocity, we do not think the appellant is justified in his content