Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Ms Kritika Kaushik Alias Hanu And Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. 1861 of 2024
Decided on : 19-07-2024
QUASHING - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - Sections 34, 108, 328, 344, 347, 384, 406, 500, 506, 511 IPC; Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 384, 504, and 406 IPC, emphasizing that for extortion, there must be a delivery of property induced by fear, which was absent in this case. The court also highlighted the necessity of proving criminal intimidation and breach of trust, ultimately concluding that the allegations did not meet the legal standards required for prosecution under the cited sections, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash the proceedings of a complaint case under various sections of the IPC, arguing that the allegations did not meet the necessary legal ingredients for the offences charged, particularly regarding extortion and criminal breach of trust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the essential elements required to establish the offences under Sections 384, 504, and 406 IPC were not present in the allegations. It noted that there was no actual delivery of property or evidence of intimidation that would constitute extortion, and the basis for criminal breach of trust was also lacking.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the complaint met the necessary legal standards to constitute offences under Sections 384, 504, and 406 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for extortion under Section 384 IPC, there must be a delivery of property induced by fear, which was not established. Similarly, for criminal intimidation under Section 504 IPC, the threat must be likely to provoke a breach of peace, which was also absent. The court emphasized the importance of the element of entrustment in establishing criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3921 of 2023, along with the summoning order, were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned AGA for State and Sri Rizwan Ahamad, Advocate for Complainant.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3921 of 2023, under Sections 34, 108, 328, 344, 347, 384, 406, 500, 506, 511 IPC and summoning order dated 18.12.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Ghaziabad, whereby Applicant-1, Kritika Kaushik has been summoned under Section 406 IPC and Applicant-2, Naresh Kumar Kaushik has been summoned under Sections 504, 384 IPC.
3. In the present case Applicant-1 is daughter-in-law of Opposite Party No. 2 and Applicant-2 is father of Applicant-1.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that even contents of complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. considered to be true, still ingredients of Sections 384, 504, 406 IPC are not made out and she refers relevant part of impugned order, which is reproduced hereinafter:
5. Learned counsel further submits that date mentioned in complaint, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as in Police investigation report is different as such even ingredients under Section 406 IPC is not made out. In support of her submissions she placed reliance on a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Sanjeev Rawat alias Teetu and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:179057 and a judgment passed by Supreme Court in M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. and others vs. Harihar Singh and another, 2008(16) SCC 763.
6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for Complainant have supported the impugned order and submit that all the allegations are supported by statements recorded during proceeding and there are reasons assigned by Trial Court concerned that there are sufficient ground to proceed.
7. In order to appreciate rival submissions the Court takes note of a recent judgment passed by this Court in Sanjay Gupta alias Sanju Mohan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:105492 wherein ingredients to commit offence under Section 384 IPC were discussed in detail and Court has also placed reliance on two judgments passed by Supreme Court in Dhananjay @ Dhandnjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2007)14 SCC 768 and Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2023 INSC 687. Relevant paragraphs of Sanjay Gupta alias Sanju Mohan (supra) are reproduced hereinafter:
“5.Section 384 provides for punishment for extortion. What would be an extortion is provided under Section 383 of the Penal Code in the following terms:
"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'."
6. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would demonstrate that the following ingredients would constitute the offence:
1. The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person.
2. The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional.
3. The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.
4. Such inducemen
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....
The creation of fear itself constitutes an offence of extortion under section 383 of IPC, even without actual delivery of property.
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.
Criminal liability under IPC sections requires clear evidence of entrustment and dishonest intention, which were absent in this case.
The court established that allegations in the FIR did not constitute extortion or criminal intimidation, emphasizing the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences.
In the absence of property transfer, allegations do not constitute extortion under IPC Section 384.
Section 384 IPC lays down for punishment for extortion.
(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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge sheet and framing of charges must be justified based on the facts and legal interpretations provided by the Apex Court and other ju....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
