# Dr. Hemika Agarwal & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 967
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-19
- **Case number:** Application U/s 482 No. 9131 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-hemika-agarwal-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52346
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 204 - Issue of process,
Section 200 - statement of complainant,
Section 202 - statement of witnesses,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 384 -
Extortion, Section 504 - Intentional insult,
Section 506 - Criminal intimidation -
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite
him due to private and personal grudge ,
inherent power could be invoked to quash
criminal proceedings.(Para - 10)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 504
-
Intentional
insult
-
mere
abuse,
discourtesy, rudeness, or insolence may
not be considered an intentional insult if it
doesn't incite a breach of peace - accused
must
intend
to
provoke
the
person
insulted or know they are likely to commit
a breach of peace - Each case of abusive
language must be decided based on the
facts and circumstances of the case - an
offense under Section 504, I.P.C. is
sufficient if the insult is calculated to
cause the other party to lose their temper
and act violently. (Para -8)

Son of opposite party No.2 (complainant) was
married with applicant No.1 - applicant No.2 is
her father - who filed a false dowry case against
her and her family - opposite party no. 2
claimed applicant demanded ₹1.5 crores to
settle the case - filed a complaint - alleging
threats and abuse - finding of trial court - Prima
facie case exists applicant, her father, and
mother - Ingredients of extortion offense
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present - court issued summons - hence
petition. (Para - 1 to 5)

HELD: - Present proceedings were initiated by
opposite party only in order to wrecking
vengeance
as
they
were
facing
criminal
proceedings on a complaint of applicant No.1 for
committing offences related to a woman.
Criminal proceedings quashed due to lack of
essential ingredients for extortion, proceedings
initiated with mala fide intentions, no specific
abusive words mentioned in FIR, insufficient
evidence for intentional insult. (Para - 7 to
11)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Dr. Hemika Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
967
is not only justified but
required to elicit a fact, wherever
the interest of truth and justice
would suffer, if he did not.
• The Judge contemplated
by Section 165 is not a mere umpire
at a wit-combat between the
lawyers for the parties whose only
duty is to enforce the rules of the
game and declare at the end of the
combat who has won and who has
lost. He is expected, and indeed it
is his duty, to explore all avenues
open to him in order to discover the
truth and to that end, question
witnesses on points which the
lawyers for the parties have either
overlooked or left obscure or
willfully avoided. A Judge, who at
the trial merely sits and records
evidence without caring so to
conduct the examination of the
witnesses
that
every
point
is
brought out, is not fulfilling his
duty."

11. Upon due consideration of the
aforesaid including the consent of the
prosecution regarding DNA test, this Court
finds that no interference is required in the
matter,
as
the
impugned
order
dated
12.02.2024 is not in violation of the provisions
and the judgment(s) referred above. The
instant application is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 967
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 9131 of 2024
Dr. Hemika Agarwal & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Ms. Pratibha Singh, Sri
Satish Kumar Tyagi

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Harish Chandra, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 204 - Issue of process,
Section 200 - statement of complainant,
Section 202 - statement of witnesses,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 384 -
Extortion, Section 504 - Intentional insult,
Section 506 - Criminal intimidation -
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite
him due to private and personal grudge ,
inherent power could be invoked to quash
criminal proceedings.(Para - 10)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 504
-
Intentional
insult
-
mere
abuse,
discourtesy, rudeness, or insolence may
not be considered an intentional insult if it
doesn't incite a breach of peace - accused
must
intend
to
provoke
the
person
insulted or know they are likely to commit
a breach of peace - Each case of abusive
language must be decided based on the
facts and circumstances of the case - an
offense under Section 504, I.P.C. is
sufficient if the insult is calculated to
cause the other party to lose their temper
and act violently. (Para -8)

Son of opposite party No.2 (complainant) was
married with applicant No.1 - applicant No.2 is
her father - who filed a false dowry case against
her and her family - opposite party no. 2
claimed applicant demanded ₹1.5 crores to
settle the case - filed a complaint - alleging
threats and abuse - finding of trial court - Prima
facie case exists applicant, her father, and
mother - Ingredients of extortion offense
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present - court issued summons - hence
petition. (Para - 1 to 5)

HELD: - Present proceedings were initiated by
opposite party only in order to wrecking
vengeance
as
they
were
facing
criminal
proceedings on a complaint of applicant No.1 for
committing offences related to a woman.
Criminal proceedings quashed due to lack of
essential ingredients for extortion, proceedings
initiated with mala fide intentions, no specific
abusive words mentioned in FIR, insufficient
evidence for intentional insult. (Para - 7 to
11)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dhananjay @ Dhandnjay Kumar Singh Vs St.
of Bihar & ors., (2007) 14 SCC 768

2. Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2023 INSC 687

3. Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., 2024: AHC:105492

4. Mohd. Wajid & Anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951

5. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi,
learned counsel for applicants, Sri Vivek
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite
party No.2/complainant and Sri Mithilesh
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Applicants are aggrieved by an
order dated 28.02.2024 passed under
Section 204 Cr.P.C., whereby they have
been summoned for offence under Sections
384, 504, 506 I.P.C. in Complaint Case
No.6204 of 2024 (Anju Garg Vs. Dr.
Hemika Agarwal and others), Police
Station- Kavi Nagar, District - Ghaziabad
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of applicants has referred contents of
complaint,
statement
of
complainant
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well
as statement of witnesses recorded under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. that even they are
considered to be true in their entirety, still
ingredients of offences under Sections 384,
504, 506 I.P.C. are not made out.

4. Learned counsel further submits
that
son
of
opposite
party
No.2
(complainant) was married with applicant
No.1, whereas applicant No.2 is her father.
Present proceedings were initiated to put
pressure on applicant side as they have
lodged an FIR against complainant and
other, for offence of demand of dowry and
other offences. For reference, statements
recorded under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. as well as impugned order are
reproduced hereinafter :-

"बयान अन्र्गटर् धारा 200 िं. प्र. सं.
आज नदनांक 2-2-2024 को अंजू गगष
पत्नी श्री प्रदीप कुमार गगष ननवासी ए-65, सेक्टर-33
नोएडा, र्थाना सेक्टर-24, नोएडा, गौतमबुद्धनगर ने
सशपर्थ बयान नकया नक मेरे पुत्र डा. प्रखर गगष का
नववाह नदनांक 15- 7-2021 को नवपक्षी डा.
हेनमका अग्रवाल से हुआ र्था। मेरी पुत्रवधु ने मेरे तर्था
पररवार के अन्य लोगों के नखलाि दहेज मांगने का झूठा
मुकदमा दजष करा नदया र्था, नजसके िैसले की एवज में
नवपक्षीगण ने हमसे डेढ करोड़ रूपये की मांग की तर्था
कहा नक उक्त धनरानश दे दोगे तो िैसला कर लेंगे।
इसकी नशकायत करने मै नदनांक 26-1-2024 को
शाम करीब 5-00 बजे र्थाना कनवनगर पर अपने पुत्र
तर्था पनत के सार्थ गयी, जहां पर र्थानाध्यक्ष नहीं नमले।
इसके बाद जब हम वापस जा रहे र्थे तो र्थाने के बाहर
रास्तें पर मेरी पुत्रवधु डा. हेनमका अग्रवाल अपने नपता
डा राकेश चन्र अग्रवाल तर्था मां नदव्या अग्रवाल के
7 All. Dr. Hemika Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
969
सार्थ गाडी संख्या यू. पी. 14 डी. एस. 2581 से
आयी तर्था र्थाने के बाहर सनवषस लेन में आगे चलकर
जब हम अपनी गाडी यू. पी. 16 डी. के. 2917 में
बैठने जा रहे र्थे, तब रोककर तीनों ने हमे धमकी दी
तर्था गाली गलौच की तर्था दहेज के केस को ननपटाने
के बदले डेढ करोड़ रुपये की अवैध मांग दोहरायी तर्था
कहा नक उनकी जान पहचान बदमाशों से है अगर
पुनलस में नशकायत की तो जान से मरवा देंगे। हमने
तुरन्त र्थाने पर वापस जाकर इस सम्बन्ध में नलनखत
ररपोटष दी परन्तु र्थाने वालों ने ररपोटष दजष नहीं की तर्था
कोटष से कायषवाही करने को कहा। इस पुनलस तहरीर की
स्वहस्ताक्षररत छायाप्रनत नै आज दानखल कर रही ह ं।

PW2
202 सी.आर.पी.सी.
09.02.2024

नाम-प्रदीप कुमार गगष पुत्र श्याम सुन्दर गगष
आयु 64 वर्ष पेशा ररटायर नन० A-65 10-33
नोएडा, र्थाना सै०-24 नौएडा नजला गौतमबुद्धनगर ने
सशपर्थ बयान नकया नक मेरी पुत्रवधू हेनमका ने मेरे व
मेरे पुत्र व पत्नी के नखलाि दहेज मांगने आनद का एक
झूठा मुकदमा कराकर िैसले में डेढ करोड की मांग की
र्थी, इसी मामले में अपनी बात कहते नदनाक
26.01.24 की शाम लगभग पांच वजे मैं अपने पुत्र
प्रखर व पत्नी श्रीमती अंजू गगष के सार्थ र्थाना कनवनगर
आया। हमने अपनी कार र्थाना सनवषस लेन में आगे कट
पर खड़ी कर दी र्थी, क्योंनक हमे दूसरे पक्ष से डर र्था नक
कहीं वो र्थाने में आकर हमसे बदतमीजी न करे, र्थाने से
वापस पैदल आकर जब कार में बैठने लगे तो डा०
हेनमका अपने नपता राकेश, राकेश व माता नदव्या के
सार्थ I-10 कार रनज० नं० U.P. 14 D.S-2581
में आयी और हमे गाडी में बैठने से रोक कर इन तीनो ने
हमे गन्दी-2 गानलया दी और हमसे दहेज के इस केस
को ननपटाने के बदले में डेढ करोड रूपये की अवैध
मांग की, उन्होने यह भी धमकी दी नक हमारी जान
पहचान बदमाशो से है. अगर इसकी नशकायत पुनलस में
की तो तुम्हें जान से मारवा देगे। हमने तुरन्त जाकर र्थाने
में नलनखत तहरीर दी, लेनकन र्थाने वालों ने ररपोटष दजष
नहीं की और कोटष से कायषवाही करने के नलए बोला।
हमे पुनलस पर भरोसा न होने की वजह से मेरी पत्नी
अन्जू ने ये पररवाद कोटष में पेश की है। पुनलस को दी
नशकायत की कापी भी मेरी पत्नी ने अपने हस्ताक्षर में
प्रमानणत करके अपने बयानो के सार्थ कोटष में दी है।
कृपया हमे न्याय देने की कृपा करे। यही मेरा बयान है।
28-02-2024
पत्रावली पेश हुई। नवगत नतनर्थ पर पररवादी
के नवद्वान अनधवक्ता को तलबी के नबन्दु पर नवस्तार
पूवषक सुना जा चुका है। पत्रावली का सम्यक अवलोकन
नकया।
संक्षेप में पररवाद कर्थानक इस प्रकार है नक
पररवादनी श्रीमनत अंजु गगष की पुत्रवधु डा० हेनमका
अग्रवाल पुत्री डा० राकेश चन्र अग्रवाल ननवासी आर
13/76, राजनगर, गानजयाबाद ने पररवानदनी उसके
पररवार के नखलाि दहेज मांगने आनद का झूठा मुकदमा
कराकर िैसले में डेढ करोड की मााँग की र्थी। इसी
मामले में नदनांक 26.01.2024 को शाम लगभग 5
बजे वह अपने पनत प्रदीप कुमार गगष व बेटे प्रखर गगष के
सार्थ र्थाना कनवनगर आयी तो डा० हैनमका अपने नपता
राकेश व माता नदव्या के सार्थ आई-टेन कार रनज० नं०
यू०पी० 14 डी0 एस0-2581 में आयी और र्थाने
वाली सनवषस लेन में आगे चलकर कट पर उनकी गाड़ी
से रोककर इन तीनों ने उन्हें गन्दी गन्दी गानलयों दी और
उनसे दहेज के इस केस को ननपटाने के बदले में डेढ
करोड रूपये की अवैध मााँग की। इन्होने यह भी धमकी
दी नक उनकी जान पहचान बदमाशों से है अगर इसकी
पुनलस में नशकायत की तो जान से मरवा देगे। हमने
तुरन्त जाकर र्थाने में नलनखत ररपोटष दी लेनकन र्थाने
वालों ने ररपोटष दजष नहीं की और कोटष से कायषवाही
करने को कहा। पुनलस पर भरोसा न होने की वजह से
यह पररवाद कोटष में पेश नकया है।
पररवाद के समर्थषन में मौनखक साक्ष्य के
रूप में धारा-200 दं०प्र०सं० के तहत पररवानदनी ने
स्वयं को परीनक्षत कराया तर्था 202 दं०प्र०सं० के
तहत साक्षीगण प्रखर गगष व प्रदीप कुमार गगष को
परीनक्षत कराया गया है तर्था संलग्न सूची में वनणषत
सम्बनन्धत प्रपत्र दानखल नकये गये हैं।
पररवादी द्वारा अपने बयान अंतगषत धारा-
2०० दं०प्र०सं० में कर्थन नकया है नक "मेरे पुत्र डा.
प्रखर गगष का नववाह नदनांक 15-7-2021 को
नवपक्षी डा. हेनमका अग्रवाल से हुआ र्था। मेरी पुत्रवधु ने
मेरे तर्था पररवार के अन्य लोगों के नखलाि दहेज मांगने
का झूठा मुकदमा दजष करा नदया र्था, नजसके िैसले की
एवज में नवपक्षीगण ने हमसे डेढ करोड रूपये की मांग
की तर्था कहा नक उक्त धनरानश दे दोगे तो िैसला कर
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
लेंगे। इसकी नशकायत करने मै नदनांक 26.01.2024
को शाम करीब 5.00 बजे र्थाना कनवनगर पर अपने
पुत्र तर्था पनत के सार्थ गयी, जहां पर र्थानाध्यक्ष नही
नमले। इसके बाद जब हम वापस जा रहे र्थे तो र्थाने के
बाहर रास्ते पर मेरी पुत्रवधू डा. हेनमका अग्रवाल अपने
नपता डा. राकेश चन्र अग्राल तर्था मां नदव्या अग्रवाल
के सार्थ गाडी संख्या यू.पी. 14 डी.एस. 2581 से
आयी तर्था र्थाने के बाहर सनवषस लेन में आगे चलकर
जब हम अपनी गाडी यू.पी. 16 डी.के. 2917 में
बैठने जा रहे र्थे, तब रोककर तीनों ने हमे धमकी दी
तर्था गाली गलौच की तर्था दहेज के केस को ननपटाने
के बदले डेढ करोड रूपये की अवैध मांग दोहरायी तर्था
कहा नक उनकी जान पहचान बदमाशों से है अगर
पुनलस में नशकायत की तो जान से मरवा देंगे। हमने
तुरन्त र्थाने पर वापस जाकर इस सम्बन्ध में नलनखत
ररपोटष दी परन्तु र्थाने वालों ने ररपोटष दजष नहीं की तर्था
कोटष से कायषवाही करने को कहा। इस पुनलस तहरीर की
स्वहस्ताक्षररत छायाप्रनत मेैै आज दानखल कर रही ह ाँ।
पररवादी की ओर से धारा-202 दं०प्र०सं०
के तहत परीनक्षत कराये गये साक्षीगण ने पररवादी के
उपरोक्त बयानों का समर्थषन नकया है।
प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में पररवाद कर्थानक में वनणषत
नवपक्षीगण द्वारा पररवानदनी व उसके पनत व पुत्र को
गालीगलौच कर साशय अपमाननत करने, उद्यापन
काररत करने व जान से मारने की धमकी देने के तथ्य
का समर्थषन पररवादी साक्ष्य अंतगषत धारा-200 व
202 दं०प्र०स० से होता है। मामले के तथ्यों
पररनस्र्थनतयों व उपलब्ध साक्ष्य के दृनिगत नवपक्षीगण 1
ता 3 तो को धारा-504, 506, 384 भा०दं०सं० के
अपराध में नवचारण हेतु तलब नकये जाने हा आधार
पयाषप्त है।
आदेश
नवपक्षीगण डा० हैनमका अग्रवाल, डा०
राकेश चन्द अग्रवाल व श्रीमती नदव्या अग्रवाल को
धारा-504, 506, 384 भा०दं०सं० के अपराध में
नवचारण हेतु जररये सम्मन तलब नकया जाता है।
पररवादी द्वारा पैरवी नकये जाने के उपरान्त कायाषलय
ननयमानुसार आदेनशकाएं नदनांक 28-03-2024 के
नलए जारी करे।"

5. Learned counsel for
opposite party No.2 has also
referred above quoted statements
that there are prima facie case
against
accused
persons.
The
learned Trial Court has assigned
requisite reason that there are
sufficient grounds to proceed.

6. In order to appreciate
rival submission and to scrutinize
whether prima facie ingredients of
offence of Extortion is made out or
not, the Court takes note of
following
paragraphs
of
Dhananjay @ Dhandnjay Kumar
Singh Vs. State of Bihar and
others, (2007) 14 SCC 768 and
Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2023 INSC
687, as referred in a judgment
passed by this Court in Sanjay
Gupta @ Sanju Mohan Vs. State
of
U.P.
and
another,
2024:AHC:105492 :-

"10. In order to
appreciate,
whether
contents of Section 387 IPC
are made out or not, it
would be appropriate to
reproduce relevant part of
judgments
passed
by
Supreme
Court
in
Dhananjay @ Dhandnjay
Kumar Singh Vs. State of
Bihar and others, (2007)14
SCC 768 and Salib @
Shalu @ Salim vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2023 INSC
687:
Dhananjay
@
Dhandnjay Kumar Singh
(Supra)
"5.Section
384
provides for punishment for
extortion. What would be
7 All. Dr. Hemika Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
971
an extortion is provided
under Section 383 of the
Penal
Code
in
the
following terms:
"383.Extortion.--
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
security,
commits
''extortion'."
6.A bare perusal of
the
aforementioned
provision
would
demonstrate
that
the
following
ingredients
would
constitute
the
offence:
1.
The
accused
must put any person in
fear of injury to that
person
or
any
other
person.
2. 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 be done
dishonestly.
7.
A
First
Information Report as is
well known, must be read
in its entirety. It is not in
dispute that the parties
entered into transactions
relating to supply of bags.
The fact that some amount
was due to the appellant
from the First Informant, is
not in dispute. The First
Information Report itself
disclosed
that
accounts
were settled a year prior to
the date of incident and the
appellant owed a sum of
about
Rs.400-500
from
(sic) Gautam Dubey (sic).
8. According to the
said
Gautam
Dubey,
however,
a
sum
of
Rs.1500/- only was due to
him.
9. It is in the
aforementioned premise the
allegations that Gautam
Dubey and the appellant
slapped the first informant
and took out Rs.1580/-
from his upper pocket must
be viewed.
10. No allegation
was made that the money
was paid by the informant
having been put in fear of
injury or putting him in
such fear by the appellant
was intentional.
11.
The
first
informant, admittedly, has
also not delivered any
property
or
valuable
security to the appellant.
12. A distinction
between
theft
and
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
extortion is well known.
Whereas
offence
of
extortion is carried out by
overpowering the will of
the owner; in commission
of an offence of theft the
offender's
intention
is
always to take without that
person's consent.
13. We, therefore,
are of the opinion that
having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the
case, no case under Section
384 of the Penal Code was
made out in the first
information report."
Salib @ Shalu @
Salim (supra)
"21.
"Extortion"
has been defined in Section
383
of
the
IPC
as
follows:-
"Section
383.
Extortion.-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
security,
commits
'extortion.
Illustrations

(a) A threatens to
publish a defamatory libel
concerning Z unless Z gives
him
money.
He
thus
induces Z to give him
money. A has committed
extortion.
(b) A threatens Z
that he will keep Z's child
in wrongful confinement,
unless Z will sign and
deliver to A a promissory
note binding Z to pay
certain monies to A. Z sings
and delivers the note. A has
committed extortion.
(c) A threatens to
send club-men to plough up
Z's field unless Z will sign
and deliver to B a bond
binding Z under a penalty
to deliver certain produce
to B, and thereby induces Z
to sign and deliver the
bond. A has committed
extortion.
(d) A, by putting Z
in fear of grievous hurt,
dishonestly induces Z to
sign or affix his seal to a
blank paper and deliver it
to A. Z sings and delivers
the paper to A. Here, as the
paper so signed may be
converted into a valuable
security. A has committed
extortion."
22. So from the
aforesaid, it is clear that
one
of
the
necessary
ingredients of the offence of
extortion is that the victim
must be induced to deliver
to any person any property
or valuable security, etc.
That is to say, the delivery
of the property must be
with consent which has
been obtained by putting
the person in fear of any
7 All. Dr. Hemika Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
973
injury. In contrast to theft,
in extortion there is an
element
of
consent,
of
course, obtained by putting
the victim in fear of injury.
In extortion, the will of the
victim
has
to
be
overpowered
by
putting
him or her in fear of injury.
Forcibly
taking
any
property will not come
under this definition. It has
to be shown that the person
was induced to part with
the property by putting him
in fear of injury. The
illustrations to the Section
given in the IPC make this
perfectly clear.
23. In the aforesaid
context, we may refer to the
following
observations
made by a Division Bench
of the High Court of Patna
in
Ramyad
Singh
v.
Emperor Criminal Revision
No. 125 of 1931 (Pat):-
"If the facts had
been that the complainant's
thumb had been forcibly
seized
by
one
of
the
petitioners and had been
applied to the piece of
paper notwithstanding his
struggles and protests, then
I would agree that there is
good ground for saying
that the offence committed
whatever it may be, was not
the offence of extortion
because the complainant
would
not
have
been
induced by the fear of
injury
but
would
have
simply been the subject of
actual
physical
compulsion."
It was held:-
"It is clear that this
definition
makes
it
necessary
for
the
prosecution to prove that
the victims Narain and
Sheonandan were put in
fear of injury to themselves
or to others, and further,
were thereby dishonestly
induced to deliver papers
containing
their
thumb
impressions.
The
prosecution story in the
present
case
goes
no
further than that thumb
impressions were 'forcibly
taken'
from
them.
The
details
of
the
forcible
taking were apparently not
put in evidence. The trial
Court speaks of the wrists
of the victims being caught
and
of
their
thumb
impressions
being
then
'taken' ....... The lower
Courts only speak of the
forcible
taking
of
the
victim's thumb impression;
and
as
this
does
not
necessarily
involve
inducing
the
victim
to
deliver papers with his
thumb impressions (papers
which could no doubt be
converted
into
valuable
securities), I must hold that
the offence of extortion is
not established."
24.
Thus,
it
is
relevant
to
note
that
nowhere the first informant
has stated that out of fear,
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
she paid Rs. 10 Lakh to the
accused persons. To put it
in other words, there is
nothing to indicate that
there was actual delivery of
possession
of
property
(money) by the person put
in fear. In the absence of
anything to even remotely
suggest
that
the
first
informant parted with a
particular
amount
after
being put to fear of any
injury, no offence under
Section 386 of the IPC can
be said to have been made
out."
(Emphasis
supplied) "

7. In the above factual and legal
background, the Court takes note of
statement of complainant as well as of
witnesses as referred above, that it is not
their case that any amount allegedly
demanded was delivered to applicants,
therefore, in view of above Dhananjay @
Dhandnjay Kumar Singh (supra) Salib
@ Shalu @ Salim (supra), essential
ingredient of offence of 'extortion' is not
made out.

8. The Court also takes note of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in case
of Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs.
State of U.P. And Others, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 951, that whether ingredients
of Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. are made out
or not. The relevant parts of Mohammad
Wajid
and
Another
(supra)
are
reproduced hereinafter :-

"SECTIONS
503,
504
AND 506 OF THE IPC
24. Chapter XXII of the
IPC
relates
to
Criminal
Intimidation,
Insult
and
Annoyance. Section 503 reads
thus:-
"Section
503.
Criminal
intimidation. -Whoever threatens
another with any injury to his
person, reputation or property, or
to the person or reputation of any
one in whom that person is
interested, with intent to cause
alarm to that person, or to cause
that person to do any act which he
is not legally bound to do, or to
omit to do any act which that
person is legally entitled to do, as
the means of avoiding the execution
of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation.
Explanation.-A threat to injure the
reputation of any deceased person in whom
the person threatened is interested, is
within this section.
Illustration
A, for the purpose of
inducing
B
to
resist
from
prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to
burn B's house. A is guilty of
criminal intimidation."
25.
Section
504
reads
thus:-
"Section 504. Intentional
insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace.-Whoever
intentionally insults, and thereby
gives provocation to any person,
intending or knowing it to be likely
that such provocation will cause
him to break the public peace, or to
commit any other offence, shall be
punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both."
7 All. Dr. Hemika Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
975
26.
Section
506
reads
thus:-
"Section 506. Punishment
for
criminal
intimidation.
-
Whoever commits, the offence of
criminal
intimidation
shall
be
punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death
or grievous hurt, etc.-And if the
threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the
destruction of any property by fire,
or to cause an offence punishable
with death or imprisonment for life,
or with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years,
or to impute unchastity to a
woman, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to
seven years, or with fine, or with
both."
27. An offence under Section 503
has following essentials:-
1) Threatening a person with any
injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or
property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of
any one in whom that person is interested.
2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person;
or
(ii) to cause that person to do any
act which he is not legally bound to do as
the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to
do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat.
28. Section 504 of the IPC
contemplates
intentionally
insulting a person and thereby
provoking such person insulted to
breach the peace or intentionally
insulting a person knowing it to be
likely that the person insulted may
be provoked so as to cause a
breach of the public peace or to
commit any other offence. Mere
abuse may not come within the
purview of the section. But, the
words of abuse in a particular case
might amount to an intentional
insult
provoking
the
person
insulted to commit a breach of the
public peace or to commit any
other offence. If abusive language
is used intentionally and is of such
a nature as would in the ordinary
course of events lead the person
insulted to break the peace or to
commit an offence under the law,
the case is not taken away from
the purview of the Section merely
because the insulted person did
not actually break the peace or
commit
any
offence
having
exercised selfcontrol or having
been subjected to abject terror by
the offender. In judging whether
particular abusive language is
attracted by Section 504, IPC, the
court has to find out what, in the
ordinary circumstances, would be
the effect of the abusive language
used
and
not
what
the
complainant actually did as a
result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy
or cool temperament or sense of
discipline. It is the ordinary
general nature of the abusive
language that is the test for
considering whether the abusive
language is an intentional insult
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
likely to provoke the person
insulted to commit a breach of the
peace and not the particular
conduct or temperament of the
complainant.
29.
Mere
abuse,
discourtesy, rudeness or insolence,
may not amount to an intentional
insult within the meaning of
Section 504, IPC if it does not
have the necessary element of
being likely to incite the person
insulted to commit a breach of the
peace of an offence and the other
element of the accused intending
to provoke the person insulted to
commit a breach of the peace or
knowing that the person insulted
is likely to commit a breach of the
peace. Each case of abusive
language shall have to be decided
in the light of the facts and
circumstances of that case and
there
cannot
be
a
general
proposition that no one commits
an offence under Section 504, IPC
if he merely uses abusive language
against the complainant. In King
Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai,
(1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court
pointed out that:-
"To constitute an offence
under Section 504, I.P.C. it is
sufficient if the insult is of a kind
calculated to cause the other party
to lose his temper and say or do
something violent. Public peace
can be broken by angry words as
well as deeds."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. A bare perusal of
Section 506 of the IPC makes it
clear that a part of it relates to
criminal intimidation. Before an
offence of criminal intimidation is
made out, it must be established
that the accused had an intention to
cause alarm to the complainant.
31.
In
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and more
particularly, considering the nature
of the allegations levelled in the
FIR, a prima facie case to
constitute the offence punishable
under Section 506 of the IPC may
probably could be said to have
been disclosed but not under
Section 504 of the IPC. The
allegations with respect to the
offence punishable under Section
504 of the IPC can also be looked
at from a different perspective. In
the FIR, all that the first informant
has stated is that abusive language
was used by the accused persons.
What exactly was uttered in the
form of abuses is not stated in the
FIR. One of the essential elements,
as discussed above, constituting an
offence under Section 504 of the
IPC is that there should have been
an act or conduct amounting to
intentional insult. Where that act is
the use of the abusive words, it is
necessary to know what those
words were in order to decide
whether the use of those words
amounted to intentional insult. In
the absence of these words, it is not
possible to decide whether the
ingredient of intentional insult is
present."

9. In above background, the Court
further
considered
the
statement
of
complainant recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. as well as of witnesses recorded
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. however, there is
nothing that applicants have put the
7 All. M/S Shyam Lalit Dubey & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
977
complainant on alarm or provoked him to
commit any act which could breach the
peace. The words used for alleged insult are
also not specific except that "ग िी गिौच की" or
"गधदी गधदी ग हिय ाँ दी". Accordingly, in view of
Mohammad Wajid and another (supra),
even ingredients of offences under Sections
504 and 506 I.P.C. are also made as well as
the
Court
is
of view
that
present
proceedings were initiated by opposite
party only in order to wrecking vengeance
as they were facing criminal proceedings
on a complaint of applicant No.1 for
committing offences related to a woman.

10. The outcome of above
discussion is that facts of present case are
squarely falls within the parameters as
referred in a judgment passed by Supreme
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426, where inherent power could be
invoked to quash criminal proceedings, and
for reference para 102(7) of Bhajan Lal
(supra) is reproduced hereinafter:

"(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

11. Accordingly, impugned order
dated
28.02.2024
is
set
aside
and
consequently criminal proceedings arising
out of complaint Case No.6204 of 2024
under Sections 504, 506, 384 I.P.C. (Anju
Garg Vs. Dr. Hemika Agarwal and others)
are also quashed.

12. Accordingly, application is
Allowed.
13. Registrar Compliance to take
steps.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 977
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act No. 66 of 2023

M/S Shyam Lalit Dubey & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Pritish Kumar, Shantanu Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Deepanshu Dass, Varun Pandey

Civil Law (The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996-Sections 31(7), 34 & 37) (The
Indian Contract Act-1872-Section 70)- The
disputes and differences have to arise out of or
in connection with the contract in question. As
has been firmly established in the present case
that while the contract in question pertains to
rebuilding of Bridge No. 70 at Km 34/13-14
between Lalgopalganj (LGO) and Bhadri (BHDR)
Station, the same has nothing to do with epoxy
grouting in relation to the other bridges. The
said work was wholly alien and independent to
the work under contract and as only incidentally
the contract in question was in existence, it
cannot be said that the work of epoxy grouting
arose out of or in connection with the contract
in question-In an arbitral dispute with reference
to quantum meruit or Section 70 of the Act,
1872, for a work undertaken which is wholly
independent of the contract containing the
arbitration clause, the same cannot become an
arbitral dispute. (Para 34, 35 & 42)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-15)