Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offence

punishable under Section 384 of IPC.

2. The summary of the charge sheet is that:

When C.W.5 and 6, on the instructions of C.W.1 were

preparing for the inauguration of the buildings, at that point of

time, the accused came to the spot and stated that, the

building is constructed without prior permission and asked for

the relevant documents and also stated that he is an RTI and

RSS activists, and if a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is not paid, he will

see to that the Chief Minister and other dignitaries will not

attend the inauguration, and he will stall the inauguration.

- 3 -

Cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the aforesaid

offence is impugned in this petition.

3.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner

submits that the allegations made in the FIR, even accepted on

the face of it, does not constitute an offence punishable under

Section 384 of IPC, since there is no allegation that the defacto

complainant parted with the money, and that the petitioner-

accused induced the defacto complainant and put him in fear to

deliver the money which is alleged to have been demanded by

the petitioner-accused. In support, he places reliance on the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay

alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh -vs- State of Bihar and Another,

reported in 2007 CRI.L.J 1440.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 submits that parting of money is not an

essential requirement to constitute an offence under Section

384 of IPC, and to constitute the said offence, it would suffice,

if a person is put in fear with an intention to induce the person

to part with the money. Alternatively, he submits that, though

money was not parted to the petitioner-accused, however, the

- 4 -

allegations made in the FIR discloses the commission of the

offence punishable under Section 385 of IPC.

5.

I have considered the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Dhananjay supra at para 6 held as follows:

"6.

A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision

would demonstrate that the following ingredients would

constitute the offence:

The accused must put any person in fear of injury

to that person or any other person.

The putting of a person in such fear must be

intentional

3.

The accused must thereby induce the person so put

in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable

security or anything signed or sealed which may be

converted into a valuable security.

4.

Such inducement must done dishonestly."

7.

In the instant case, there is no allegation that the

accused has put the defacto complainant in fear of injury

intentionally, and thereby induced the defacto complainant to

deliver the money to which he has allegedly demanded. In the

absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the

commission of an offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC,

- 5 -

the

cognizance

taken

by

the

learned

Magistrate

is

impermissible.

8.

To constitute an offence punishable under Section

385 of IPC, a person must put any other person in fear of any

injury. In the instant case, there is no material placed along

with the charge sheet that, the petitioner has put the defacto

complainant in fear of any injury in order to commit extortion.

9.

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the

considered view that, the continuation of the criminal

proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of process

of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i)

The writ petition is allowed;

ii)

Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.608/2019 on the

file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala is hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87