IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Rohit Sharma S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji Sharma - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2477 Of 2018
Decided On : 17-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 383, 384, 385, and 506 - Quashing of FIR for extortion - Allegations of harassment and threats without delivery of property do not constitute extortion - The court emphasized that for extortion, there must be an intention to induce delivery of property due to fear. (Paras 4, 7, 10)
(B) Legal Definition of Extortion - The court reiterated that mere threats without the delivery of property do not satisfy the criteria for extortion under IPC. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR alleging extortion, claiming that the complainant was threatened to deliver illegal donations, but no property was delivered. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR did not establish the offence of extortion as defined under IPC, allowing the petition in part. (Paras 10, 11)
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations in the FIR constituted extortion under IPC. (Paras 4, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for an offence of extortion to be made out, there must be a delivery of property induced by fear, which was absent in this case. (Paras 4, 8)
Result: The incorporation of Section 384 IPC in the FIR was quashed; investigation may continue under Sections 385 and 506 IPC.
Order :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR No. 121/2018 registered at Police Station Chhoti Sadri, Pratapgarh for the offence under Sections 383, 385, 506 of the IPC.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR are that complainant Ganesh Lal lodged the FIR for the allegations that the petitioner used to harass him and mount pressure to deliver illegal amount or donations to him, or else he would publish news in the newspaper about his corrupt practice and then would make the news viral on social media. The FIR also has a recital about sending a complaint by the petitioner to the Registrar, Board of Revenue Board, Rajasthan, Chief Minister of Rajasthan and copies of which were sent to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, IG of Anti- Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, having false allegations of his corrupt practice. 2.1 Based upon the aforementioned allegations, the investigation is being carried by the police. Hence, the Misc.Petition.
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter.
4. After perusing the material available on record, it is necessary to first discuss the provision of extortion and how it is defined under IPC. For ready reference, Section 383 of the IPC is reproduced herein below:-
“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”.
Illustrations
(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.
(b). A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has committed extortion.
(c). A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.
(d) by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.”
A bare perusal of Section 383 of the IPC reveals that, for the offence of extortion to be made out, there must be an intention on the part of the accused to put another person in fear of injury, and as a result of such fear, the person so threatened must be dishonestly induced to deliver any property or valuable security. In the present case, it is evident from plain reading of the FIR itself that the offence of extortion is not made out, as the allegations indicate a mere threat and there is no allegation or evidence to suggest that the complainant delivered any property or valuable security to the petitioner.
5. Section 384 IPC is punishment for extortion as per which whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or both.
6. Section 385 of the IPC is regarding putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. For ready reference, Section 385 of the IPC is reproduced herein below:-
Section 385- Putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion.
Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
This provision envisages that whoever, in order to commit extortion, puts any person in fear or make an attempt to put any person in fear of any injury, shall be punished with imprison
For extortion under IPC, there must be an intention to induce delivery of property due to fear; mere threats without delivery do not constitute the offence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of quashing should be sparingly exercised and only in exceptional cases, and that the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the ....
The court established that allegations in the FIR did not constitute extortion or criminal intimidation, emphasizing the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences.
(1) Extortion – Commission of offence of extortion is not sine qua non for offence under Section 387, IPC – For prosecution under Section 387, IPC, delivery of property is not necessary – Section 387....
The essential elements of extortion require an actual delivery of property under threat, which must be established for a charge under Section 387 IPC to be valid.
(1) Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself only to stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the over....
The court emphasized that quashing FIRs should be rare, allowing investigations to proceed unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The essential ingredients for offences of extortion, criminal intimidation, and criminal breach of trust must be clearly established, and failure to do so warrants quashing of proceedings under Secti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.