The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the offence of 'Extortion' under Section 383, I. P. C. and the application of legal principles to determine the legality of the order of cognizance and the continuation of criminal proceedings.

ORDER

This application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order of cognizance dated 29-8-2003 passed by the learned S. D. J. M., Bhubaneswar, in G. R. Case No. 3572 of 2000, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 294/506/384/504/34, I. P. C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20-10-2000, the informant, opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint/report to the effect that on 14-10-2000 morning at 10.30 a.m. Sri Pradip Mohanty, Secretary, Dr. Moses Sukumar Das, Principal and three other teachers namely, Sri Rupa Kamal Mandal, Sri Milu Chandra Tripathy and Sri Ronald Baren, committed house trespass in his absence and abused his wife Smt. Rama Jena insulted her and threatened as to why her brothers were staying in the school campus to which she politely replied that since all of them are her own brother-in-laws, they can stay with her. But Pradip Mohanty abused her in obscene language which were witnessed by other Class-IV employees of the school. On his return from duty, the informant found his wife was weeping and on being asked she narrated the entire episode and as to how she has been humiliated and abused. The informant immediately went to the office of the Secretary to ask the cause of all these nuisance but surprisingly he was again abused by the Secretary and was threatened and asked to resign from the service or else he would be dismissed from service immediately. The informant was asked to kneel-down and rub his nose on the floor as well as on the shoes of all the persons present inside the office of the Secretary. Besides that, the Secretary directed the informant to clean the shoes of all the persons present by his tongue. The informant was compelled to do all these things and he did accordingly out of fear. Subsequently on 19-10-2000 the petitioner called the informant to Cuttack on official work. Accordingly, the informant along with his wife came to Cuttack office where the petitioner showed him some typed Court papers, which were typed in English language and the informant was told to accompany one Surya Singh and Jogendra to Court in order to sign the paper so that there would be no danger to his service and that they will take care of him. On account of such inducement the informant accompanied Surya Singh and Jogendra in the office vehicle and went to the Court, where nothing was explained to him with regard to the contents of the Court papers and being afraid and in order to save his service and under compulsion, the informant signed the papers, without understanding the contents of the same. Apprehending that the above noted Officers of the school may use the said Court papers/documents to put the informant to trouble, the report was filed.

3. On the basis of the said report of the informant, the IIC, Nayapalli Police Station registered the FIR as Nayapalli P. S. Case No. 224, dated 20-10-2000 under Sections 294/506/384/504/34, I. P. C. and the Investigating Officer was directed to investigate into the allegation. During investigation of the case, the I. O. had medically examined the informant and the report of the treating doctor with regard to the injury was obtained, who opined that there was healed abrasion and scab formation on the bridge of the nose which was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt instrument and that the injuries were caused within 3 to 4 days. During investigation witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and after completion of the investigating charge sheet was submitted against the present petitioner and others. The learned Magistate after perusal of the police report and the documents being prima facie satisfied, took cognizance of offence under Sections 294/ 506/384/504/34, I. P. C. against the accused persons including the present petitioner.

4. Sri I. C. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations made in the FIR does not make out offence under Section 384/34,