Familial disputes, lacking elements of criminal intent, cannot sustain charges of extortion under IPC criteria, justifying quashing of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Sambalpur, in I.C.C. Case No. 256 of 2021, whereby the learned court took cognizance of the offences alleged against the Petitioners pursuant to a complaint filed by the Opposite Party under Sections 384 /506/34 of the IPC.

2. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioners and the Opposite Party are related to each other. Petitioner No.1, a widow, is the biological sister of the Opposite Party, while Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are her sons. As the Petitioners had no residence of their own, they were permitted to occupy a house belonging to the Opposite Party on rent in the year 2013-14. At that time, the Opposite Party was residing abroad in the United Kingdom.

With the passage of time, the Opposite Party got married and continued to reside abroad, while his family remained at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundargarh, Odisha. During one of his visits to India, the Opposite Party required the said house at Sambalpur, which was in the occupation of the Petitioners, for his own use and requested Petitioner No.1 to vacate the same so that he could stay there with his family. This request allegedly created a sense of insecurity in the minds of the Petitioners. Consequently, despite repeated requests from the Opposite Party to vacate the premises, Petitioner No.1 did not comply. On the contrary, Petitioner No.1, along with her two sons, allegedly resorted to unethical means to avoid vacating the house.

It is alleged that in December 2020, when the Opposite Party warned Petitioner No.1 and called for a family meeting, she reacted aggressively and demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000 from him as a precondition for vacating the house. She is further stated to have challenged the Opposite Party’s right and title over the said property. The Opposite Party, in order to regain possession of his house, allegedly succumbed to this unlawful demand and paid Rs.3,00,000 in cash to the Petitioners. Upon receipt of the said amount, the Petitioners vacated the premises, enabling the Opposite Party and his family to take possession thereof. The Opposite Party claims that, in order to meet the said demand, he had to obtain a loan, and that he was dishonestly induced by the Petitioners, who extorted the money by putting him under immense fear of injury.

According to the Opposite Party, the Petitioners intentionally put him and his family in fear of dispossession from their residential house and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver Rs.3,00,000 to them, thereby committing extortion. It is further alleged that, despite timely steps taken by the Opposite Party, the investigating agency failed to secure the ends of justice and acted in a mala fide manner with an ulterior motive by not taking appropriate action against the serious and heinous offences allegedly committed by the accused persons.

The allegations made by the Opposite Party culminated in a complaint case registered as I.C.C. Case No. 256 of 2021, in which the learned court took cognizance of the offences alleged. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present application seeking quashing of the impugned order.

3. Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, during the course of hearing, strenuously argued that none of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 384 /506/34 of the IPC are satisfied from the averments made in the complaint or from the statements of witnesses recorded under