Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu, J.
Sudha Tripathi v. State of M.P. and Anr.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 11871 of 2019 (Gwalior); Decided on 2.5.2019
A.K. Mishra with Himanshu Pandey for applicant;
Anmol Khedkar, Panel Lawyer, for responden No.1/State;
Prashant Sharma for respondent No.2.
Headnote:
(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 384 and 385 -- petitioner instilled fear in the mind of complainant and her father with intent to induce them to part with Rs. 20,00,000/- and deliver the same to her -- first two essential ingredients of putting complainant and her father to fear of injury and inducing them to part with their property/valuable security is prima facie made out from bare reading of allegation in charge-sheet -- however, third ingredient of delivery of property/valuable by complainant in favour of someone is missing since complainant and her father did not part with Rs. 20,00,000/-, nor was said amount delivered to petitioner/accused -- Held -- petitioner took all possible steps for instilling fear in mind of complainant to persuade/induce her -- this positive overt act of petitioner clearly demonstrates that attempt was made by her to commit extortion -- allegations in charge-sheet prima facie spell out offence punishable u/s. 385 (attempt to extortion) and not u/s. 384. (2014)15 SCC 357 referred to. [Paras 5.3, 6 & 7
(2) Extortion -- provisions from Ss. 383 to 389 IPC are essentially divided into two categories of extortion -- extortion as defined in S. 383, when complete by satisfaction of all three ingredients, is dealt with and made punishable u/ss. 384, 386 and 388 IPC -- only difference is in degree of gravity -- other category of extortion contained in Ss. 385, 387 and 389 relates to acts where transaction of extortion is not complete due to last ingredient of delivery of property/valuable or valuable security being missing -- common thread running through these three sections is the expression "whoever in order to the committing of extortion ..." -- it makes legislative intent clear that they relate to a situation where accused, in order to commit extortion, puts victim in fear of injury to cause inducement, but not leading to any delivery of property/valuables in favour of accused -- provisions of Ss. 385, 387 and 389 of IPC relate exclusively to attempted extortion where entire transaction of extortion as defined in S. 383 IPC is not complete. [Paras 5.6 to 5.8
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.511, 383 to 389 -- scope of S. 511 -- commission of extortion and attempt to commit extortion are both provided for in Ss. 383 to 389 -- resort to residuary clause u/s. 511 is uncalled for. (2001)8 SCC 633, AIR 1961 SC 1698, (1974)3 SCC 357, AIR 1980 SC 1111 and 2007 CrLJ 2302 followed. [Para 5.9
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 383 to 389 -- extortion -- nature of offence -- is a serious offence -- considered to be graver than theft but not as graver as robbery -- seriousness is evident from the very fact that attempt to commit extortion is separately punishable u/ss. 385, 387 and 389. [Para 5.12
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 384 rFkk 385 && ;kph us #- 20]00]000@& ls vyx gkssus vkSj og jde ;kph dks ifjnÙk djus ds fy, mRizsfjr djus ds vk'k; ls ifjokfnuh vkSj mlds firk ds eu esa Hk; cSBk;k && vkjksi i= esa fd, x, vfHkdFku ds iBu ek= ls ifjokfnuh vkSj mlds firk dks {kfr djus ds Hk; esa Mkyus rFkk mudh laifÙk@ewY;oku izfrHkwfr ls vyx gksus ds fy, mUgsa mRizsfjr djus ds izFke nks vfuok;Z la?kVd izFken`"V~;k fl) gksrs gSa && rFkkfi] ifjoknh }kjk fdlh O;fDr ds i{k esa laifÙk@ewwY;oku izfrHkwfr ds ifjnk; ds r`rh; la?kVd dk vHkko gS D;ksafd ifjoknh vkSj mldk firk #- 20]00]000@&ls vyx ugha gq, vkSj u gh mDr jde ;kph@vfHk;qDr dks ifjnÙk dh xbZ && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ;kph us ifjokfnuh dks eukus@mRizsfjr djus ds fy, mlds eu esa Hk; cSBkus gsrq lHkh laHko dne mBk, && ;kph ds bl lfØ; izR;{k ÑR; ls Li"V iznf'kZr gS fd mlds }kjk míkiu djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k && vkjksi i= ds vfHkdFkuksa ls izFken`"V~;k /kkjk 385 ds v/khu naMuh; vijk/k ¼míkiu djus dk iz;kl½ xfBr gksrk gS] /kkjk 384 ds v/khu ughaA ¼2014½15 ,l lh lh 357 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 5-3] 6 ,oa 7
¼2½ míkiu && naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 383 ls 389 ds v/khu mica/kksa esa míkiu lkjr% nks oxks± esa foHkkftr gS && /kkjk 383 ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr míkiu] tc og lHkh rhu la?kVdksa dh iwfrZ ls laiw.kZ gks] naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 384] 386 ,oa 388 ds v/khu micaf/kr vkSj naMuh; gS && ,dek= varj xaHkhjrk dh ek=k dk gS && /kkjk 385] 387 ,oa 389 esa varfoZ"V míkiu dk vU; oxZ mu ÑR;ksa ls lacaf/kr gS tgk¡ lafiÙk@ewY;oku izfrHkwfr ds ifjnk; ds vafre la?kVd dk vHkko gksus ds dkj.k míkiu dk laO;ogkj iw.kZ ugha gks && bu rhu /kkjksa esa loZfu"B lw= vfHkO;fDr Þtks dksbZ míkiu djus ds fy, &&-Þ dk gS && blls ;g fo/kk;h vk'k; Li"V gksrk gS fd ;g ml ifjfLFkfr ls lacaf/kr gS tgk¡ vfHk;qDr] míkiu djus ds fy, mRizsfjr djus gsrq] vkgr dks {kfr ds Hk; esa Mkyrk gS ijarq mlds ifj.kkeLo:i vfHk;qDr ds i{k esa laifÙk@ewY;oku oLrq dk ifjnk; ugha gksrk && naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 385] 387 ,oa 389 ds mica/k vuU;r% míkiu ds iz;kl ls lacaf/kr gSa tgk¡ naM lafgrk dh èkkjk 383 esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr míkiu dk laO;ogkj iw.kZ ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 5-6 ,oa 5-8
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 511] 383 ls 389 && /kkjk 511 dh O;kfIr && míkiu djus vkSj míkiu djus dk iz;kl djus] nksuksa ds fy, mica/k /kkjk 383 ls 389 esa fd, x, gSa && /kkjk 511 ds v/khu vof'k"Vh; [kaM dk vkJ; vuko';d gSA ¼2001½8 ,l lh lh 633] , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 1698] ¼1974½3 ,l lh lh 357] , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 1111 rFkk 2007 lhvkj ,y ts 2302 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 5-9
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 338 ls 389 && míkiu && vijk/k dh izÑfr && xaHkhj vijk/k gS && pksjh ls vf/kd xaHkhj le>k tkrk gS ijarq ywV ftruk ugha && xaHkhjrk blh rF; ls lqLi"V gS fd míkiu djus dk iz;kl /kkjk 385] 387 rFkk 389 ds v/khu i`Fkd~ ls naMuh; gSA iSjk 5-12
ORDER
1. Inherent powers of this Court u/S.482 of CrPC are invoked seeking quashment of charge-sheet bearing Crime No.128/2015 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior alleging offences punishable u/S.384, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC against the petitioner and five other named accused.
2. The solitary contention of counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforesaid challenge is that the offence of extortion as alleged is not made out even by the mere reading of the allegations in the FIR and the supportive documents especially in the absence of any material to even prima facie indicate that any property or valuable security was delivered to the petitioner/accused pursuant to the alleged threat and inducement extended by the petitioner, the offence of extortion even on prima facie basis is not made out.
2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Isaac Isanga Musumba and others v. State of Maharastra and others reported in [(2014)15 SCC 357].
2.2. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and the State do not dispute that there has been no delivery of property or valuable security to the accused/petitioner by the complainant but since one of the primary ingredients of the offence of extortion, of extending threat and fear of injury by the petitioner/accused to the respondent/complainant is complete, the offence of extortion is attempted to be committed even in the absence of the other ingredient of delivery of property or valuable security to the accused/petitioner. It is thus, submitted by the respondent/complainant and the State that in the given facts and circumstances even where delivery of property and valuable security is missing the offence of extortion is made out and punishable u/S. 384 with the aid of Sec. 511 of IPC.
3. Before dealing with the contentions of rival parties, it would apt to first consider the allegations as per the FIR registered on 11.4.2015 by the respondent/complaint against six named accused including the petitioner which is to the effect that co-accused Amit was known to the complainant because he used to study in Jiwaji University about six months back. The FIR alleges that the said coaccused Amit met the complainant at Chetakpuri petrol pump and inquired as to whether the marriage of the complainant has been fixed with someone else to which the complainant responded that he should minded his own business. It is alleged thereafter, that the said co-accused Amit threatened the complainant that he would ensure that said marriage does not take place and extended criminal intimidation to the complainant who got scared. After a few days when the complainant got over the feeling of intimidation, she informed her family members about the incident. The FIR thereafter alleges that the parents of the complainant confronted the parents of co-accused Amit including his mother Smt. Sudha Tripathi who is petitioner herein but no fruitful resolve could take place. It is alleged that the parents of co-accused Amit further repeated the threat that they would ensure that the marriage of complainant as fixed with someone else does not take place. The FIR thereafter alleges that sometime in January / February, 2015 on asking of coaccused Amit, the father of complainant went to the house of petitioner/accused and her parents where the co-accused Dilip Pandey (father of accused Amit) demanded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the father of complainant by extending threat that if the said amount is not delivered to the accused the marriage of complainant as fixed would not materialize. In furtherance of this threat and intimidation, WP No.1357/2015 was filed by co-accused Amit Tripathi against the father of complainant seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus for creating pressure, which was heard on 24.3.2015 when the complainant who was alleged to be the corpus in the said petition appeared before the Court and made her statement against the c
