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 reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0128 of 2022, under Section 386, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun. Further prayer has been made for a direction to respondent no. 1 to initiate departmental enquiry against respondent no. 3. The F.I.R. is on record as Annexure No.-4 to the writ petition.

3. It is alleged in the FIR that complainant runs a meat shop, his brother Umesh Kumar purchased a land for a sale consideration of Rs.43,00,000/- from one Suresh Singh, in lieu of which, he paid a sum of Rs.28,00,000/-, remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was to be paid by complainant’s brother, after execution of sale deed, which he could not pay. On account of nonpayment of money, Suresh Singh got the sale deed cancelled with mutual consent, on the assurance given by Suresh Singh that he will return the money. After some time, complainant along with his brother went to Suresh Singh asking for return of money, who sought three days’ time. On 21.04.2022, petitioner called respondent no. 3 from his mobile by introducing himself as badmash Jitendra @ Jitti and he threatened the complainant not to ask for the money from Suresh Singh or to give remaining Rs.15,00,000/- to him as ransom or else he will finish him and his family members. It is further alleged that even thereafter, petitioner made threatening phone calls asking the complainant to pay Rs.13,00,000/-. It is further alleged that every now and then, persons come to his shop demanding money at the behest of petitioner.

4. According to the petitioner, a sale deed was executed in favour of Umesh Kumar by Suresh Singh for Rs.43,00,000/-. Umesh Kumar paid a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- to Suresh Singh and when he could not pay the remaining amount to Suresh Singh, a Civil Suit was filed by Suresh Singh against Umesh Kumar before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rishikesh, Dehradun, for declaring sale deed dated 20.09.2019, as null and void. Subsequently, on 27.01.2022, the suit was decided in terms of compromise between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the FIR; petitioner never extended threat to complainant; no offence is made out against petitioner and FIR has been filed at the behest of police by complainant. He further submits that FIR has been lodged by Mukesh Kumar, who is stranger to the sale deed.

6. Relying upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others v. State of Mahrashtra and others, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 357 learned counsel for petitioner submits that unless property is delivered to the accused pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and FIR for offence under Section 384 could not have been registered.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & others reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918 has summarised the legal position on the scope of power of High Court in such matters, in para 10 of the judgment, which is reproduced below:-

“10. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C