SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(MP) 161

SHEEL NAGU
Sudha Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K. Mishra with Himanshu Pandey for applicant;
Anmol Khedkar, Panel Lawyer, for responden No.1/State;
Prashant Sharma for respondent No.2.

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 b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top