The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to compound non-compoundable offences under IPC based on changed circumstances and the interpretation of the elements of the offences.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Heard.

2. In this C482 petition, the challenge given by the present applicant is to the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1927 of 2021, State vs. Ravi Papnai, being the proceedings drawn for against the present applicant for the offences under Sections 504, 506, 386, 501, 509 and 354-D of IPC. As a consequence of the registration of aforesaid criminal case, the summoning order has been issued against the present applicant, being the summoning order dated 20.02.2021.

3. The C482 application is listed along with the compounding application, wherein the complainant has stated in her affidavit filed in support thereto, that she wants to mitigate the offence for which trial is pending consideration, owing to the fact that, subsequently she is married to another male. Out of the said matrimony she has got a child and, hence, she wants to dilute all the offences, in order to have a peaceful married life which she is having with another male.

4. The C482 application is being vehemently opposed by the learned Government Advocate on the ground, that two of the offences, i.e., offence under Section 386 and Section 354-D of IPC are not compoundable, as such the compounding application may not be considered by this Court, in exercising its inherent powers under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but, in order to meet out the objection as raised by the Government counsel, this Court is of the view, that so far as the allegation pertaining to the offence under Section 386 of IPC is concerned, the provisions contained under Section 386 IPC, if it is taken into consideration which deals with an extortion. For extortion the basic element which is required therein which could be derived from the definition of extortion as given under Section 383 IPC, which specifically uses the word that “the person so put in fear to deliver to any person” meaning thereby, that the primary ingredients required for the purposes of commission of the offence under Section 386 IPC for extortion there has had to be an actual delivery of the amount to the other person to make out an offence under Section 383 IPC to be read with Section 386 IPC.

5. The aforesaid principle as to under what circumstances the offence under Section 386 IPC could be made out, was dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in Salib @ Shalu Salim vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 SCC Online 94 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 22 of the said judgment has observed, that for the purposes of commission of an offence under Section 386 IPC, its necessary ingredients for the offence of ‘extortion’ is that victim must be induced to deliver any person any property or valuable security. Thus, the Court has observed that ultimately in the absence of there being an actual delivery, the offence under section 386 IPC, could not be made out, because for extortion under Section 386 IPC, there has had to be an actual delivery of the valuable security. Relevant paragraphs 22 and 25 are extracted hereunder:

“22. So from the aforesaid, it is clear that one of the necessary ingredients of the offence f extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury. The illustrations to the Section given in the IPC make this perfectly clear.

25. Thus, it is relevant to not that nowhere the first information has stated that out of fear, she paid Rs. 10 lakh to the accused person