Point of Law: Section 384 IPC lays down for punishment for extortion.

ORDER :

1. The present petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner being aggrieved by the registration of an FIR No.311/2017 registered at the police Station Nai Mandi, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 384 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2-complainant filed an FIR alleging that she is a Sarpanch and present petitioner has demanded Rs.3 lacs and if not paid to him then he would proceed to institute false cases and proceedings against her. After registration of FIR, investigation was carried out and police has drawn a charge sheet with finding that offence under Section 384 IPC is made out against the petitioner. An additional affidavit on behalf of the then Investigating officer Late Shri Anwar Khan was filed by Shri Vikram Chouhan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submitted that from bare perusal of FIR no prima facie case of extortion is made out against the petitioner and the petitioner, a RTI activist, was unnecessarily been implicated in the instant matter under the political pressure by the complainant, who is a Sarpanch. He would further submitted that extortion is defined under Section 383 of the IPC wherein unless any valuable property is delivered or anything is signed or converted into a valuable security, the process of extortion is not completed. He would submitted that as per allegations in FIR only threat was given to respondent No.2 but no demand or delivery of valuable security was effected by victim thus, it is nothing but an abuse of process of law. To support his contention learned counsel has relied upon the pronouncement of Hon’ble Court in the case of Vena Ram Vs. State of Raj. 2002 (2) WLN 628 and upon the judgment delivered by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in case of Shatrughan Singh Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, 2021 0 Supreme (Chh) 243.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 would submitted that police after investigation, prima-facie found involvement of present petitioner and once the offence is proved, then FIR cannot be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.508/2023 decided on 25.01.2023. He would further submitted that petitioner demanded Rs.3 lacs from respondent No.2 and on nonfulfillment of demand he filed several false complaints to higher officials and also threaten to viral these allegation on social media network thus ingredients under Section 383/ 384 IPC are made out against the petitioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant. Perused the material available on record.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to peruse the facts of the FIR for which, the same is reproduced as under:-

^^vkt fnukad 23-10-2017 ds oä 8-33 ih,e ij Jhefr T;ksfr es?koky ifRu Jh Mqaxjjke tkfr es?koky mez 28 lky fuoklh okMZ ua 10] 3 ,lVhvkj iqfyl Fkkuk ubZ e.Mh ?k³lkuk ftyk Jhxaxkuxj gky ljiap 24 ,,l&lh us gkthj Fkkuk gksdj ,d VkbZi 'kqnk fyf[kr fjiksVZ cnhetequ] çkFkZuk i= Jheku Fkkukf/kdkjh egksn; iqfyl Fkkuk ?kM+lkuk fo"k; & eqdnek ntZ dj dkuquh dk;Zokgh djus ckcrA Jheku th mijksä fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd çkFkhZ;k o"kZ 2015 ls xzke iapk;r 24 ,,l&lh dh ljiap gSA çkFkhZ;k dks fiNys 2 o"kZ ls dey dkUr iq= jktkjke tkfr dqEgkj fuoklh 3 ,lVhvkj vk;s fnu fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds çkFkhZ;k dks /kedh nsrk gS fd ;fn vkius 3]00]000@& :i;s ugha fn;s rks eSa f[kykQ >wBs rF;ksa ij eqdnek ntZ djok nwaxk] ,oa yxkrkj çkFkhZ;k dks ekufld :i ls çrkfMr dj jgk gSA
vkt ls djhc 7 jkst iqoZ dey dkUr çkFkhZ;k dks feyk rks dgk fd es vkjVhvkbZ dk;Z djrk gaq ;fn eq>s 3]00]000@&#i;s ugha fn;s rks eSa vkid