NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 898 of 2022 Shiv Shanker Navik S/o Late Matar Ram Navik Aged About 57 Years R/o And Posted As S.D.O. Forest - Mahasamund Presently at Dhamtari Division, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretory Home Department, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Superintendent of Police Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

3. Mayank Gupta S/o Manik Gupta, Aged About 34 Years Post -

Reporter R/o Pyarelal Ward Nayapara, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

4. Ashwani Kumar Sinha S/o Bhuwan Lala Sinha Aged About 30 Years R/o Piperchedi Police Station Piperchadi Tehsil and District Gariyaband.

5. Ashwani Kumar Soni S/o Not Known Aged Approx. 35 Years R/o Shanker Nager Ward No.1, Bavli Chowk Mahasamund, District Mahasamund ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

01.08.2023 Heard Mr. Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Wasim Miyan, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2/State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities 1-3 to take immediate action against the accused persons/accused by arresting.

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the police authorities to correct the section in the matter and file the charge sheet under section 384 of IPC along with section 3(2)(s)(r)(u)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come up before this Court stating that the offence for which FIR No. 395/2021 was registered was under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and subsequently, added Sections 3(2) and 5(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been registered under Section 385 of the IPC, instead of Section 384 of the IPC, thus, the petitioner prays that the same may be corrected by this Court.

4. Learned State counsel has pointed out that as per the return the State paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 reads as follows:

“6. It is respectfully submitted on behalf of the answering respondent that so far as the allegation of non registration of the offence under Section 384 of IPC instead of Section 385 of IPC is concerned that as per the material available in the written complaint the ingredients of Section 383 is not disclosed, therefore, offence under Section 384 of IPC has not been registered and only offence under Section 385 has been registered as per the written complaint made by the petitioner in his written complaint before the Police Station Mahasamund.

7. That the extortion is defined under Section 383 of IPC and as per Section 383 whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other and thereby dishonestly induced 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 counts extortion. In the written complaint made by the petitioner the basic ingredients for Section 383 to induce the person so put into fear to deliver to property or valuable security is not disclosed, therefore, offence under Section 384 has not been registered and the offence under Section 385 has been registered by the answering respondents.

8. It is very well settled law that First Information Report is not an en