In the absence of property transfer, allegations do not constitute extortion under IPC Section 384.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.149/2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangady, which has arisen from Crime No. 273/2020, registered by the Tenhipalam Police Station, Malappuram, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code (‘ IPC ’, in short).

2. The concise case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner had send SMS and whatsapp messages to the additional 2^nd respondent threatening that he would give false evidence against the 2^nd respondent before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), in a case pending between the 2^nd respondent and the Roxcel Trading Company, if the 2^nd respondent did not pay the petitioner Rs.50 lakh. Thus, the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 384 of the IPC .

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure-2 FIR and Annexure -3 final report are taken on their face value, the same will not constitute an offence under Section 384 of the IPC . In order to attract the said offence, there should not only be an intentional act of putting a person to fear or injury, but dishonest inducement to make the person deliver any property or valuable security. A reading of Annexures 2 and 3, unequivocally substantiates that there was only an alleged threat, but there was no delivery of any property. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it would not lead to a conviction. The prosecution has been initiated by the 2^nd respondent to wreak vengeance on the petitioner due to certain business transactions. Actually, the 2^nd respondent has to make some payment to Roxcel Trading Company, a company based in Vienna. As the petitioner was aware of the transaction, he was requested to give evidence as a witness. The above company also requested the petitioner to contact the 2^nd respondent to ask for the outstanding payment. It is this story that the 2^nd respondent has twisted and alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence under of the . The entire prosecution is vexatious. Therefore, this Court may exercise its inherent powers and quash the proceedings.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent oppose the Crl.M.C. They submit that, if the allegations in Annexure 2 and 3 are taken on their face value, it will certainly make out an offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC , if not Section 511 of 384. This Court may not exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings because the allegations in final report reveal that there was a threat on the part of the petitioner. Hence, Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

6. On a careful analysis of the allegations in Annexure 2 FIR and Annexure 3 final report, I find that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that, he had threatened to give false evidence against the 2^nd respondent before the NCLT in a proceedings initiated by the Roxcel Trading Company, if the 2^nd respondent company failed to pay him Rs.50 lakh. He also send messages to the 2^nd respondent directing him to pay the amount of Roxcel Trading Company.

7. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 383 and 384 of the IPC , which reads as follows:

“ Section 383 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 securit