JUDGMENT

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide instant petition, the State - petitioner has sought to quash the impugned order dated 16.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, (Central) Delhi whereby learned Trial Judge found no sufficient evidence to make out prima facie case against respondent Khalil Ahmed for the offence punishable under Section 3(2), 3(4) and Section 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as the MCOCA). Thus, learned Trial Judge discharged the respondent for the offences alleged therein.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 384/387/506/467/ 468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2), 3(4) and Section 4 of MCOCA. However, finding prima facie offences punishable under Section 386/387/506-II and Section 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate, the matter has been sent back, accordingly.

3. The facts in brief of the case are that complainant namely Sh.Qmar Ahmad has been running a trading company in the name of M/s A.S. Traders at Khari Baoli, Delhi. On 16.02.2009, when he was present at his shop along with his business partner namely Sanjeev Bhist, two persons came at his shop at about 02:30 PM. One of them handed over his mobile phone to him and forced to talk with Khalil Ahmed/respondent , a notorious criminal of the area. It was alleged that respondent had threatened him & demanded Rs. 10.00 Lacs. Also threatened in case of non-payment, he should be ready to face the music and in that eventuality he would eliminate him and his family. Respondent asked him to reach Darya Ganj immediately. Complainant expressed his inability to reach there immediately, he asked him to come to Tis Hazari on the next day at about 11:00 AM. One of the persons picked up the visiting card also from his shop. It was further alleged that while leaving the shop, both the persons threatened the complainant that in case extortion amount was not paid, complainant would have to face the consequences. It was further alleged that he was so terrified that he did not report the matter to the police.

4. On 17.02.2009, when the complainant along with Sanjeev were getting the complaint prepared at Karkardooma Court, complainant had received a call on his mobile phone bearing no. 931063391 from a mobile phone bearing no.9210459185, respondent was caller and he rebuked him for not reaching at Tis Hazari and again terrorized him. Complainant disconnected the phone. Though, complainant had received 2-3 more calls from the said number yet complainant did not attend the same. It was stated that at about 11:50 AM, complainant had again received a call from the same number, but this time it was attended by Sanjeev posing himself as driver of complainant and when Sanjeev told that "sahib (complainant) had gone inside the court. respondent infuriated and threatened him. Complainant continued to receive numerous calls from the above number and another number i.e. 9871144610, but he did not attend the calls. At about 02:00PM, respondent alongwith 8-10 persons visited his shop and intimidated his servant Imran, who told the same to the complainant on phone.

5. On the statement of complainant, an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 384/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was got registered. Upon lodging of the FIR, it was alleged that the complainant reached his shop in the evening. The respondent came there and threatened the complaint that he would have to face the music of lodging the FIR against him. On 26.02.2009, respondent was apprehended from near India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, when he along with his associate came there on a bike. Though his associate had managed to escape, yet police succeeded in apprehending the respondent.

6. From the respondent, two mobile phones bearing Nos.9210459185 and 9871144610 were recovered. It wa