# Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 24
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-28
- **Case number:** SHAMSHERY J. Application U/S 482 No. 19550 of 2024
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-gupta-sanju-mohan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52142
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 200,
202, 204 & 482 - The Indian Panel
Code, 1860 - Sections 383 & 387: -
Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
summoning order U/s 204 of Cr.P.C. - both
the parties (Applicant & Complainant) are in
litigation on the issue of trade mark and
copyright - complaint case was filed by
complainant - to put pressure upon the
applicant to compromise in the case - court
finds that, in order to make out a case of
extortion, one of the essential ingredient is
to deliver any property or valuable security
being under threat by Complainant to
accused is absolutely missing - however, it
was not a case of Complainant that he
actually handed over Rs. 5 lacs to accused -
held, in order to committing of extortion u/s
387 IPC act of extortion has to be
concluded in terms of section 383 IPC -
since, in this case, ingredient of section 387
IPC are not made out therefore, in view of
law settled in case of A.M. Mohan (SC) it is
a fit case, where in exercise of inherent
power, impugned criminal proceedings can
be quashed - hence, instant application is
allowed.
 (Para - 11, 13, 14, 15)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kotwali, District Mainpuri, are hereby
quashed.

17. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.

---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 24
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY J.

Application U/S 482 No. 19550 of 2024

Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Kamal Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Kartikeya Shukla

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 200,
202, 204 & 482 - The Indian Panel
Code, 1860 - Sections 383 & 387: -
Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
summoning order U/s 204 of Cr.P.C. - both
the parties (Applicant & Complainant) are in
litigation on the issue of trade mark and
copyright - complaint case was filed by
complainant - to put pressure upon the
applicant to compromise in the case - court
finds that, in order to make out a case of
extortion, one of the essential ingredient is
to deliver any property or valuable security
being under threat by Complainant to
accused is absolutely missing - however, it
was not a case of Complainant that he
actually handed over Rs. 5 lacs to accused -
held, in order to committing of extortion u/s
387 IPC act of extortion has to be
concluded in terms of section 383 IPC -
since, in this case, ingredient of section 387
IPC are not made out therefore, in view of
law settled in case of A.M. Mohan (SC) it is
a fit case, where in exercise of inherent
power, impugned criminal proceedings can
be quashed - hence, instant application is
allowed.
 (Para - 11, 13, 14, 15)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. A. M. Mohan Vs St. Represented by SHO &
anr.(2024 SCC Online SC 339),

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

3. Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs St. of UP &
ors.(2003 INSC 687),

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

1.

Applicant
is
aggrieved
by
summoning order dated 28.08.2023 passed
under Section 204 Cr.P.C. by Additional
Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Dacoity
Affected Area), Jalaun at Orai in Complaint
Case No. 58 of 2022 (M/s Balaji Traders
Proprietor Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs.
Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan), whereby
applicant has been summoned to face trial
for offence under Section 387 IPC.

2. It has been pointed out that both
parties are in litigation on the issue of trade
mark and copyright with regard to
packaging of Supari which is pending
before appropriate Court. It is the case of
applicant that Complainant has initiated
present proceedings only to put pressure on
him to compromise in the case.

3. It is the case of Complainant that
alleged
occurrence
took
place
on
22.05.2022
when
accused
side
have
threatened him and tried to kidnap him by
pointing a gun in order to procure Rs. 5
6 All. Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
25
lacs to permit him to run the business of
Gutkha (Sudh Supari Dana) and when
Police Authorities failed to lodge FIR, an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was filed. It is further case of Complainant
that under the orders of Court it was treated
as complaint case and statements under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were
recorded and applicant was summoned by
impugned order to face trial under Section
387 IPC.

4. Sri Kamal Singh, learned counsel
for
applicant,
submitted
that
even
considering above referred contents of
complaint and statements, no offence is
made out against applicant as it is not the
case of Complainant that he has given any
money to applicant. It has also been urged
that absolutely a false case was lodged only
in order to put pressure on applicant.
Learned counsel referred the judgments
passed by Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak
vs. A.R. Antulay, 1986 Vol. LXXXVIII
Page 260; Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R.
Prasanna
Kumar
and
others,
Manu/SC/0159/1989; Medchi Chemicals
& Pharma P. Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd.
and others, (2000)3 SCC 269; and State
of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 to
contend that it is a fit case to exercise
inherent power envisaged under Section
482 Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, Sri Kartikeya Shukla,
learned counsel appearing for Opposite
Party No. 2, i.e., Complainant, urged that
impugned order
assigned
reasons
as
required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. that
there are sufficient ground to proceed
against applicant. He also referred the
statements recorded under Sections 200 and
202
Cr.P.C.
as
well
as
impugned
summoning order.

6. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

7.

Before
adverting
to
rival
submissions it would be relevant to refer
few paragraph of a recent judgement
passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan
Vs. State Represented by SHO and
another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339:-

"9. The law with regard to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and
criminal proceedings has been succinctly
summarized by this Court in the case of
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India
Limited1 after considering the earlier
precedents. It will be apposite to refer to
the following observations of this Court in
the said case, which read thus:

"12. The principles relating to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash complaints and criminal proceedings
have been stated and reiterated by this
Court in several decisions. To mention a
few-Madhavrao
Jiwajirao
Scindia
v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988)
1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan
Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
[(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
1059], Central

Bureau
of
Investigation
v.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5
SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of
Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8
SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC
259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma
v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay
Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC
122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles,
relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed
where
the
allegations
made
in
the

complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out the case alleged
against the accused. For this purpose, the
complaint has to be examined as a whole,
but without examining the merits of the
allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor
a meticulous analysis of the material nor
an
assessment
of
the
reliability
or
genuineness of the allegations in the
complaint, is warranted while examining
prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be
quashed where it is a clear abuse of the
process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated
with mala fides/malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not,
however, be used to stifle or scuttle a
legitimate prosecution. The power should
be used sparingly and with abundant
caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required
to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients
of the offence alleged. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the complaint,
merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings
should
not
be
quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted
only where the complaint is so bereft of
even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make
out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely
a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are
different from a criminal proceeding, the
mere fact that the complaint relates to a
commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is
available or has been availed, is not by
itself a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not."

8. In aforesaid factual and legal
background the Court has to consider,
whether on basis of material available
ingredients of Section 387 IPC are made
out as well as what is the effect of rival
litigation on the issue of Trademark and
Copyright. For reference definition of
'extortion' as given in Section 383 IPC and
Section
387
IPC
are
reproduced
hereinafter:

"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
6 All. Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
27
into
a
valuable
security,
commits
"extortion"."

"387. Putting person in fear of
death or of grievous hurt, in order to
commit extortion.-Whoever in order to the
committing of extortion, puts or attempts to
put any person in fear of death or of
grievous hurt to that person or to any
other, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine."

9. In order to further appreciate the
rival submissions it would be apt to
reproduce the relevant part of complaint,
statement of Complainant recorded under
Section
200
Cr.P.C.,
statements
of
witnesses recorded under Sections 202
Cr.P.C. and impugned order, as under:

Relevant part of Complaint:

"4. यह कि घटना किनाांि 22.05.2022 समय
िरीब 3 बजे किन िी है, प्रार्थी बाजार से अपने घर स्िूटी से आ
रहा र्था, कि जैसे ही राठ रोड उरई से सत्िार मैररज हाउस वाले रास्ते
पर अपने घर िे कलये चला तभी एि स्िाकपियों िार आिर रूिी,
और प्रार्थी िी स्िूटी िे आगे लगा िी, उसमें से उक्त सांजय गुप्ता एवां
3 अज्ञात व्यकक्त जो अपने-अपने हार्थों में राइफल कलये र्थे, कजन्हे
सामने आने पर प्रार्थी पकहचान सिता है, गाडी से उतरे और उक्त
सांजय गुप्ता प्रार्थी से बोला कि अपना सुपारीिाना गुटखा बन्ि िर िो,
और हमने जो तुम्हारे सुपारीिाना िे नाम से कनिाला है, उसे बाजार
में चलने िो और उसमें से मुनाफे िा िुछ कहस्सा तुमिो िे िेगें, तो
प्रार्थी ने मना िर किया तो उपरोक्त लोग आग बबूला होकर के
सीने पर राइफले लगाकर कहा कक यकद अपना गुटखा
चलाओगे तो प्रकतमाह5 लाख रूपया देना पडेगा, प्रार्थी द्वारा
इन्िार िरने पर उपरोक्त लोग प्रार्थी िो मारपीट िर जबरन अपहरण
िरने िे उद्देश्य से गाडी में डालने लगे प्रार्थी द्वारा कचल्लाने पर रास्ते
से कनिल रहे राजा कसांह पुत्र रणवीर कसांह कनवासी नया रामनगर उरई
एवां राममनोहन पुत्र रामियाल कनवासी गाांधी नगर उरई, कजला
जालौन तर्था मुहल्ले िे िई लोग आ गये तो उपरोक्त सभी लोग
प्राथी को गुटखा (शुद्ध सुपारी दाना) बाजार में बेचने पर व 5
लाख रूपया प्रकतमाह ना देने पर जान से मारने की धमकी देते
हुये स्काकपषयों में बैठकर भाग गये।"

Relevant part of statement of
Complainant:

"किनाांि 22.05.2022 िो समय िरीब 3.00
बजे किन में मेैै बाजार से स्िूटी से घर आ रहा र्था राठ रोड सत्िार
मैररज हाउस िे एि स्िाकपियो िार आिर उसिी स्िूटी िे सामने
रूिी और उस गाडी से सजय गुप्ता एवां तीन अज्ञात व्यकक्त अपने-
अपने हार्थों में राइफल कलये उतरे और सांजय गुप्ता मुझे बोला कि
अपना सुपारीिाना गुटखा बांि िर िो और जो हमने तुम्हारे सुपारी
िाना िे नाम से कनिाला है उसे बाजार में चलने िो, हम लोग िुछ
मुनाफा तुम्हें िे िेगे। मेरे मना िरने पर वह नाराज होिर मेरे सीने में
राइफल लगा किया और िहा कि यकि अपना गुटखा चलाओगे तो
हमें 05 लाख रूपया िेना पडेगा, मेरे मना िरने पर मुझे मारपीट
िरिे जबरन गाडी में डालने लगे। मेरे कचल्लाने पर राहगीर राजा
कसांह पुत्र राणािीर कसांह एवां राममनोहर पुत्र रामियाल तर्था मुहल्ले िे
िई लोग आ गये। वह लोग मुझे गुटखा बाजार में बेचने पर व 5
लाख रूपया प्रकतमाह न देने पर जान से मारने को धमकी देते
हुये गाडी में बैठकर भाग गये। मै िोतवाली उरई ररपाटि िरने गया
व पुकलस अधीक्षि जालौन स्र्थान उरई िो प्रार्थिनापत्र पांजीिृत डाि
से प्रेकित किया।"

Relevant part of statement of
PW-1:

"घटना किनाांि 22 मई सन् 2022 िी समय िरीब
3.00 बजे किन िी है मैससि बालाजी ट्रेडसि िे माकलि मनोज
अग्रवाल अपनी स्िूटी से बाजार से चलिर िकटिा वाले रास्ते से
अपने घऱ जा रहे र्थे तभी स्िूटी िे आगे एि स्िाकपियों िार रूिी
िार िे अांिर से सांजय गुप्ता व तीन अज्ञात िकत्रम जो अपने हार्थ में
बांिूि कलए र्थे उतरे। सांजय गुप्ता ने मनोज अग्रवाल से िहा कि मैंने
तुम्हारे नाम से जो सुपारी िाना कनिाला है उसे चलने िो और अपना
जो चला रहे हैं उसे बांि िर िो मैं जो चल रहा ह ूँ मुनाफे में से िुछ
कहस्सा िेता रह ांगा मनोज अग्रवाल ने ऐसा िरने से मना िर किया तो
वह गुस्से में आकर बंदूक तान दी और बोले कक अगर अपना
गुटखा चलाना हो तो मुझे रू० 500,000 रूपये हर महीने दो
और मारपीट करने लगे और खींचकर गाडी में डालने लगे वहाूँ
कचल्लाने की आवाज सुनकर 10-20 आदकमयों की भीड
इकट्ठा हो गई कफर मुकल्जमान यह धमकी देते हुए कक अगर रू०
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
500,000 रूपए हर महीना नहीं कदया तो जान से मार देंगे
और उसी गाडी में बैठकर चले गए।"

Relevant part of statement of
PW-2:

"घटना किनाांि 22/05/2022 िी है समय िरीब
3.00 बजे किन िी घटना है मैससि बालाजी ट्रेडसि िे माकलि
मनोज अग्रवाल अपनी स्िूटी से अपने घर जा रहे र्थे वह सरिर
िकटिा वाले रास्ते से जा रहे र्थे तभी स्िूटी िे आगे स्िाकपियों िार
रूिी िार िे अांिर से सांजय गुप्ता व तीन अज्ञात िकत्रम उतरे जो
अपने हार्थ में बांिूि कलए र्थे सांजय गुप्ता ने मनोज अग्रवाल से िहा
कि मैंने तुम्हारे नाम से जो सुपारी िाना गुटिा कनिाला है उसे चलने
िो और जो अपना गुटखा चला रहे हो उसे बांि िर िो मैं अपने
गुटिे िी आमिनी में से िुछ कहस्सा िेता रह ांगा मनोज गुप्ता ने ऐसा
िरने से मना किया तो उन्होने गुस्से में आकर बंदूक के तान दी
और बोले अगर अपना गुटखा चलाना हो तो मुझे 5 लाख
रूपया हर महीने का दो और मारपीट करने लगे खींचकर गाडी
में डालने लगे कचल्लाने की आवाज सुनकर वहां पर 10-20
लोग इकट्ठे हो गए और कफर मुकल्जमान धमकी देते हुए कक
अगर रू० 500,000 हर महीना नहीं कदया तो जानसे मार देंगे
और गाडी में बैठकर चले गए।"

Relevant part of impugned
order:

"उपरोक्त सुस्र्थाकपत कवकध िे आलोि में हस्तगत
प्रिरण िे तथ्यों व पररकस्र्थकतयों िी समीक्षा से स्पष्ट है कि पररवादी
को गुटका (शुद्ध सुपारी दाना) बाजार में बेंचने पर एवं
5,00,000/- रूपये प्रकतमाह न देने पर जान से मारने की
धमकी देने तथा कथन ककया है। पररवादी की ओर से परीकित
सािी पी०डब्लू०1 राममनोहर व पी०डब्लू० 2 राजा कसंह ने
पररवादी के कथनों का समथषन ककया है।

इस स्तर पर पररवाि िर्थानि व समर्थिन में व इस
स्तर पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य िे आधार पर न्यायालय िे मत में कवपक्षी
सांजय गुप्ता उफि सांजू गोहन िे कवरूद्ध प्रर्थम दृष्टया धारा 387
भा०िां०सां० िा अपराध गकठत होना पाया जाता है। उपरोक्तानुसार
कवपक्षी सांजय गुप्ता उफि सांजू गोहन िो धारा 387 भा०िां०सां िे
अपराध में कवचारण हेतु आह त किये जाने िा पयािप्त आधार है। "

(Emphasis supplied)

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
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
6 All. Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
29
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 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
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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, 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
6 All. Brajesh Singh @ Pappu Singh Vs. State of U.P.
31
the IPC can be said to have been made
out." (Emphasis supplied)

11. I have carefully perused the
contents of complaint, statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well
as
impugned
order.
As
referred
in
Dhananjay @ Dhandnjay Kumar Singh
(supra) and Salib @ Shalu @ Salim
(supra), in order to make out a case of
extortion, one of the essential ingredient is
to deliver any property or valuable security
being under threat by Complainant to
accused, whereas in the present case such
ingredient is absolutely missing as it was
not a case of Complainant that he actually
handed over Rs. 5 lacs to accused.

12. The nature of allegation is that
Complainant was put under threat of fear of
death that he has to pay Rs. 5 lacs to run
the business of Gutkha but admittedly no
amount was paid. A reference be taken of
statement
of
Complainant
and
other
witnesses being part of present order that,
"बंदूक तान दी और बोले कक अगर अपना गुटखा चलाना हो
तो मुझे 5,00,000 रूपये हर महीने दो".

13. The words used in Section 387
IPC, i.e., "in order to the committing of
extortion" is used for an act committed
during act of extortion and for that act of
extortion has to be concluded in terms of
Section 383 IPC.

14. In aforesaid circumstances, since
in the present case act of 'extortion' was
not concluded as Rs. 5 lacs was not paid,
therefore, offence under Section 383 IPC
was not made out and consequently offence
under Section 387 IPC was also not made
out. [See, Dhananjay @ Dhandnjay
Kumar Singh (supra) and Salib @ Shalu
@ Salim (supra)]

15. The outcome of above discussion
is that, ingredients of Section 387 IPC are
not made out, therefore, in view of A.M.
Mohan (supra), it is a fit case where in
exercise of inherent power present criminal
proceedings can be quashed.

16. In the result, application is
allowed. Impugned summoning order dated
28.08.2023 as well as entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 (M/s Balaji
Traders Proprietor Manoj Kumar Agarwal
vs. Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan), under
Section 387 IPC, Police Station Kotwali
Orai, District Jalaun, pending in the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special
Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jalaun at
Orai, are hereby quashed.

17. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 31
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6338 of 2024

Brajesh Singh @ Pappu Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajendra Prasad Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.
Criminal Law - Bail - Abetment of Suicide -
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section
439 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section
306 - Abetment of Suicide - Section 107 -
Abetment of a Thing - In the suicide note,