IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Applicant is aggrieved by summoning order dated 28.08.2023 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 (M/s Balaji Traders Proprietor Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs. Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan), whereby applicant has been summoned to face trial for offence under Section 387 IPC.

2. It has been pointed out that both parties are in litigation on the issue of trade mark and copyright with regard to packaging of Supari which is pending before appropriate Court. It is the case of applicant that Complainant has initiated present proceedings only to put pressure on him to compromise in the case.

3. It is the case of Complainant that alleged occurrence took place on 22.05.2022 when accused side have threatened him and tried to kidnap him by pointing a gun in order to procure Rs. 5 lacs to permit him to run the business of Gutkha (Sudh Supari Dana) and when Police Authorities failed to lodge FIR, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed. It is further case of Complainant that under the orders of Court it was treated as complaint case and statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and applicant was summoned by impugned order to face trial under Section 387 IPC.

4. Sri Kamal Singh, learned counsel for applicant, submitted that even considering above referred contents of complaint and statements, no offence is made out against applicant as it is not the case of Complainant that he has given any money to applicant. It has also been urged that absolutely a false case was lodged only in order to put pressure on applicant. Learned counsel referred the judgments passed by Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay, 1986 Vol. LXXXVIII Page 260 : 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 141; Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and others, Manu/SC/0159/1989; Medchi Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. and others, (2000)3 SCC 269; and State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 to contend that it is a fit case to exercise inherent power envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, Sri Kartikeya Shukla, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., Complainant, urged that impugned order assigned reasons as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. that there are sufficient ground to proceed against applicant. He also referred the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as impugned summoning order.

6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Before adverting to rival submissions it would be relevant to refer few paragraph of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339:-

“9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:

“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few—Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Ph