The creation of fear itself constitutes an offence of extortion under section 383 of IPC, even without actual delivery of property.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The challenge given by the present applicants in this C482 application is to the cognizance order dated 21.01.2023, as it was passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in a Criminal Case No. 179 of 2023, State vs. Yogesh Shaily and Others, whereby, they have been summoned to be tried for the offences under section 384 and 506 of IPC, which was registered against them at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, by way of an FIR No. 369, dated 29.06.2022. As a consequence to the issuance of the summoning order, the present C482 application has been filed on the ground that no offence under section 384 of IPC is made out as against the present applicants, and as such, continuance of the aforesaid criminal proceedings would be nothing, but an abuse of the process.

2. In relation, thereto, the learned counsel for the applicants had argued the matter in the context of the definition of extortion as provided under section 383 of IPC, which is extracted hereunder:

“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.”

3. What he intends to argue is that if the definition of extortion, which is extracted above, is taken into consideration, the basic element to constitute an offence of extortion is that there has had to be an actual delivery of the valuables or the money in order to constitute an offence of extortion. Merely the creation of the fear of an injury will itself not constitute as to be an offence under section 384 of IPC, which could be made punishable for the sentence contemplated, therein, for an extortion under section 384 of IPC.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicants has initially referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in Isaac Isanga Musumba and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2014 (15) SCC 357. Particularly, he has made a reference to the contents of paragraph 3 of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder:

“3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that the complainants have alleged that the accused persons have shown copies of international warrants issued against the complainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Affairs and the accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent to 110 crores). In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as defined in Section 383, IPC is made out. Section 383, IPC states that.......”

5. If the said case is taken into consideration, an attempt which has been made by the learned counsel for the applicants is that as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the context of the said judgment, there is no mention that in pursuance to the demand made by the accused person, therein, any actual amount was delivered to the accused by the complainant herein, and thereof, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that no offence under section 383 of IPC could said to be made out to attract section 384 of IPC, because it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that until and unless the property or valuable is delivered to an accused person in pursuance to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out against the applicant, therein.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has made reference to yet another judgment rendered by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Shatrughan Singh Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, WPCR No. 1