Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 213
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sheel Nagu, J.
Deepti Gupta (Smt.) and others v. Smt. Shweta Parmar
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2302 of 2013 (Gwalior) : against the order dated 8.2.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Complaint Case No.1254 of 2013; Decided on 21.4.2016.
Rajmani Bansal for petitioners;
Ankur Modi for respondent.
Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 -- S.384 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.200, 202 and 482 -- cognizance taken by JMFC on complaint under -- to constitute such offence -- person must be put into fear of injury and victim delivers any particular property or valuable security to man putting him into fear -- no delivery of any property or valuable security given -- ingredients of offence of extortion excluded -- no undertaking given by which any liability was incurred or right given up by wife -- no question of extortion made out even on prima facie -- cognizance taken by Court below against petitioners untenable -- impugned order passed in Complaint Case No.1254/2013 quashed.
Held : Reading of the prosecution story contained in pleadings in the complaint and the supportive statements recorded, do not disclose that any such undertaking was ever written much less signed by the respondent/wife. There is not even an iota of material/evidence to show that any such undertaking was given by which any liability was incurred or any right was given up by the respondent/wife due to the threat extended to her by the petitioners. Thus, "valuable security" as defined in section 30 of IPC did not come into existence at all. The absence of valuable security coming into existence renders the offence of extortion untenable. Mere threat or fear of injury which has not led to creation of a valuable security cannot constitute offence of extortion. (2007)14 SCC 768 referred to.
naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 384 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 200] 202 rFkk 482 && mica/kksa ds v/khu ifjokn ij izFke oxZ U;kf;d eftLVªsV }kjk laKku fy;k x;k && ,slk vijk/k xfBr djus ds fy, && O;fDr dks {kfr ds Hk; esa j[kk tkuk pkfg, rFkk ihfM+r us dksbZ fof'k"V laifÙk ;k ewY;oku~ izfrHkwfr dk ifjnku ml O;fDr dks fd;k gks ftlus mls Hk; esa j[kk && fdlh laifÙk dk ;k ewY;oku~ izfrHkwfr dk ifjnku ugha && mn~nkiu ds vijk/k ds la?kVd vioftZr && dksbZ opuca/k ugha fn;k x;k ftlds }kjk dksbZ ftEesnkjh mBkbZ xbZ gks ;k iRuh }kjk vf/kdkj R;kx fn;k x;k gks && mn~nkiu dk iz'u izFken`"V~;k Hkh ugha curk && fupys U;k;ky; }kjk ;kph ds fo#} fy;k x;k laKku izpyu ;ksX; ugha && ifjokn ekeyk Ø-1254@2013 esa ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k vfHk[kafMrA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ifjokn ds vfHkopuksa esa varfoZ"V vfHk;kstu dgkuh dk vè;;u rFkk vfHkfyf[kr leFkZd dFku izdV ugha djrs fd ,slk opuca/k dHkh&Hkh fy[kk x;k rFkk izR;FkhZ@iRuh }kjk gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k gksA lkexzh@lk{; dk ,d fcanq Hkh ;g nf'kZr djus ds fy, ugha fd ,slk dksbZ opuca/k fn;k x;k ftlds }kjk dksbZ ftEesnkjh mBkbZ xbZ ;k ,slk vf/kdkj izR;FkhZ@iRuh }kjk mls ;kphx.k }kjk nh xbZ /kedh ds dkj.k R;kx fn;k gksA bl izdkj] ewY;oku~ izfrHkwfr tSlh fd Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 30 esa ifjHkkf"kr dh xbZ vfLrRo esa ugha vkbZA ewY;oku~ izfrHkwfr dh vuqifLFkfr dk vfLrRo esa vkuk mn~nkiu ds vijk/k dks vleFkZuh; cuk nsrk gSA dsoy /kedh ;k {kfr dk Hk; ftlls ewY;oku~ izfrHkwfr dk l`tu ugha gqvk gks mn~nkiu ds vijk/k dk xBu ugha dj ldrhA ¼2007½ 14 ,l lh lh 768 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 11½
1. Inherent powers of this court under section 482 of CrPC are invoked for assailing the order dated 8.2.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Complaint Case No.1254/2013 for taking cognizance of the complaint alleging offence punishable under section 384 of IPC, and thereby issuing summons to the petitioners. Pertinently, petitioner No.1 is Smt. Deepti Gupta, who is said to be friend of Dr. Subhash Parmar, husband of respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to the present dispute is that on 21.6.2010 the respondent and Dr. Subhash Parmar entered into wedlock whereafter both started residing in matrimonial home at Bhopal but later from August, 2010 to May, 2010 they shifted to Gwalior. The respondent alleged that she was subjected to curelty for dowry demand. It was further alleged that in connivance with one Dr. Deepti Gupta (petitioner No.1), who is alleged to be friend of husband Dr. Subhash Parmar, the respondent/wife was surreptitiously given drugs so that she may abort the unborn child, who was diagnosed by sonography to be of female sex. It was alleged that in this nefarious object, her husband Dr. Subhash Parmar and his friend Dr. Deepti Gupta succeeded as the unborn child was aborted. It is further alleged that in November, 2011, the respondent again became pregnant. The husband is alleged to have increased his dowry demand and acts of cruelty which compelled the respondent to leave her matrimonial home and start residing with her parents. It is further alleged that dowry demand of Rs.25,00,000/- was made by the husband and his parents which could not be met except exchange of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Meanwhile, the respondent/wife gave birth to a girl child, namely, Pihu. It is lastly alleged that sometime in November 2012, the husband threatened his wife/respondent that he has given the girl child to Dr. Deepti Gupta and the child will be returned to respondent/wife only if she gives an undertaking in writing that she would consent for a divorce in the divorce petition filed by the husband in the Court. It is also alleged that on 13.1.2013, the respondent/wife alongwith her father and another person, namely, Vivek Mittal visited the residence of Dr. Deepti Gupta. It is alleged that said Dr. Deepti Gupta reiterated the threat of the husband of respondent that unless she (respondent/wife) consents to the request of divorce made by husband in the Court, the daughter Pihu shall not be returned to the respondent.
4. In this factual background, an attempt was made to lodge the report but the same did not succeed whereafter the wife filed complaint under section 200 of CrPC vide Annexure P-2, dated 17.1.2013. Statements of the respondent/wife were recorded on 21.1.2013 along with her father on 22.1.2013 alleging aforesaid incidents. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 8.2.2013, the trial Judge took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 384 of IPC, and issued summons which has brought the petitioners to this Court.
5. To prove the offence under section 384 of IPC, the prosecution prima facie has to establish the following ingredients as provided under section 383 of IPC :
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. The essential ingredients for constituting the offence of Extortion are :
(i) intention to put a person under fear of injury,
(ii) thereby induces dishonestly to
(a) deliver any property, or
(b) valuable security, or
(c) anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security,
(iii) to any person.
7. Thus, what is necessary for constituting an offence of extortion is that the prosecution must prove that on account
