# Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 960
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-18
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 42148 of 2022
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjeev-rawat-teetu-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49243
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 383, 386, 389, 452,
504, 506 & 507 - Application u/s 482 - for
quashing the charge-sheet as well as impugned
order by which discharge application filed by the
accused-applicant was rejected - FIR - under
section 452, 386, 504, 506 & 507 IPC -
Investigation - Statement recorded u/section
161 of Cr.P.C. - charge sheet - Discharge
Application - rejected - charges are framed
u/section 386, 389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC -
plea taken that - neither in the FIR nor in the
Statement recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. there
is allegation as defined in section 383 IPC as
well as no case is made out u/s 452 IPC and as
such no case would also be made u/s 504, 506
& 507 of IPC - Court finds that, charges under
Sections 386 and 389 IPC were improperly
framed as the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Statements lacked essential ingredients-no
delivery of property or fear of accusationrequired under Sections 383 and 389 IPC. -
held that, no case is made out u/sections 386 &
389 IPC, but the trial court erred by functioning
like a post office accepted the charge-sheet and
treating the version true, rejecting the discharge
application without judicial scrutiny - however,
remaining sections i.e. Sections 452, 504, 506,
and 507 IPC, this court found no illegality in
rejecting the discharge application and framing
charges - consequently, Application is partly
allowed - trial Court directed that proceedings
continue under valid sections in accordance with
law. (Para - 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39)

Application Partly Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,995 of 54,318. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39995 for what follows._

960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India. However, Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Prabhu Chawla
Vs. State of Rajasthan and another,
(2015) 17 SCC (562) observed that
alternative remedy is not a bar to exercise
jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in exceptional
case,
therefore,
in
exceptional
case
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be
entertained against judicial order in the
interest of justice.

5. In view of the above legal position,
applicants are permitted to file Petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India for challenging the impugned judicial
orders.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the
present Application is dismissed.

7. Certified copy of the impugned
order may be returned to learned counsel
for the applicants after obtaining xerox
copy of the same.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 960
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 42148 of 2022

Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ms. Shreya Gupta, Shambhavi Sengar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, Sri Saurabh
Agarwal
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 383, 386, 389, 452,
504, 506 & 507 - Application u/s 482 - for
quashing the charge-sheet as well as impugned
order by which discharge application filed by the
accused-applicant was rejected - FIR - under
section 452, 386, 504, 506 & 507 IPC -
Investigation - Statement recorded u/section
161 of Cr.P.C. - charge sheet - Discharge
Application - rejected - charges are framed
u/section 386, 389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC -
plea taken that - neither in the FIR nor in the
Statement recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. there
is allegation as defined in section 383 IPC as
well as no case is made out u/s 452 IPC and as
such no case would also be made u/s 504, 506
& 507 of IPC - Court finds that, charges under
Sections 386 and 389 IPC were improperly
framed as the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Statements lacked essential ingredients-no
delivery of property or fear of accusationrequired under Sections 383 and 389 IPC. -
held that, no case is made out u/sections 386 &
389 IPC, but the trial court erred by functioning
like a post office accepted the charge-sheet and
treating the version true, rejecting the discharge
application without judicial scrutiny - however,
remaining sections i.e. Sections 452, 504, 506,
and 507 IPC, this court found no illegality in
rejecting the discharge application and framing
charges - consequently, Application is partly
allowed - trial Court directed that proceedings
continue under valid sections in accordance with
law. (Para - 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39)

Application Partly Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Isaac Isanga Musumba & ors. Vs St. of Mah.
& ors. - (2014) 15 SCC 357,

2. Bhupinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. -
2022 1 ACR 816,

3. Mohammad Ubaid Vs St. of U.P. passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30337 of
2023 on 2.8.2023,

4. Smt. Laxmi Devi & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
passed in Application U/S 482 No.5688 of 2018.
1 All. Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
961
5. Ritaben @ Ramaben Vs St. of Guj. passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 9885 of 2016.

6. Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
Passed in Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2021,

7. Sidhique Kappan Vs St. of U.P. through
Principal Secretary Home Lucknow - 2023 0
Supreme (All) 140.

8. Smt. Shila Devi Vs St. of U.P. & anr. passed
in Application U/S 482 No. 16386 of 2021,

9. Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd) Vs Hussain
Mohammad Shattaf - 2023 0 AIR (SC) 2480.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned
counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for
the State and Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged
between the parties and with the consent of
parties, application is being decided at the
admission stage itself.

3. Present application has been filed
for quashing the impugned orders dated
23.11.2022 & 22.2.2023 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Case No.
714 of 2021 (State vs. Ashok Rawat and
Another), arising out of Case Crime No.
358 of 2020, under Sections 389, 386, 452,
504, 506 & 507 IPC, Police Station-
Kotwali, District- Hathras.

4. Brief facts of the case are that
earlier an FIR has been lodged against the
applicants on 22.10.2020, which was
registered as Case Crime No. 0358 of 2020
under Sections 452, 386, 504, 506 & 507
IPC. During the course of investigation,
Investigating Officer has recorded the
statement of informant-opposite party no.2
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.10.2020.
Thereafter, I.O. has submitted the charge
sheet against the applicants under Sections
386, 389, 452, 504 & 506 IPC. Before
framing of charges, applicants have filed
discharge application on 10.8.2022, which
was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2022
by C.J.M., Hapur. After rejection of
discharge application, learned Court has
also framed charges under Sections 386,
389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 vide order dated
22.2.2023, which is also under challenged
in the present application by filing
amendment
application.
Amendment
application was allowed vide order dated
12.4.2023 and same was also incorporated
in the said application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that for deciding discharge
application, it is required on the part of
Magistrate to see FIR, Case Diary,
Statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and Charge Sheet.

6. She next submitted that for
submitting the charge sheet under Section
386 read with Section 383 IPC, it is
required to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security or anything
signed or sealed which may be converted
into a valuable security, but in the present
case, neither in the FIR nor in the statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there
is such allegation about the delivery of any
valuable property as defined in Section 383
IPC. Therefore, no case is made out under
Section 386 IPC. In support of his
contention, she has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Apex Court as well as
judgments of this Court in the cases of
Isaac Isanga Musumba and others vs.
State of Maharashtra and others reported
in (2014) 15 SCC 357, Bhupinder Singh
and others vs. State of U.P. and another
reported in 2022 1 ACR 816, Mohammad
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ubaid vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 30337 of 2023
on 2.8.2023 and Smt. Laxmi Devi and 3
others vs. State of U.P. and others passed
in Application U/S 482 No.5688 of 2018.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that so far as Section 389 IPC
is concerned, there is no allegation of fear
of accusation either in the FIR or in the
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., therefore, no case is also made
out under Section 389 IPC.

8. She further submitted that
likewise as per FIR as well as statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there
is no allegation upon the accusedapplicant to enter inside the house of the
victim, but his presence was only shown
at the residence. Therefore, no case is
made out under Section 452 IPC.

9. She also submitted that once there
is no case is made out under Section 452
IPC certainly no case would also be made
out under Section 504, 506 and 507 IPC.

10. She next submitted that Inquiry
Officer without properly considering the
material
available
on
record
has
submitted that charge sheet, which is bad
and liable to be set aside. In support of
his contention he has placed reliance
upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court
in the matter of Ritaben @ Ramaben
W/O Karnabhai Solanki vs. State of
Gujarat
passed
in
Criminal
Misc.
Application No.9885 of 2016

11.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants has also submitted that while
deciding
the
discharge
application,
learned Magistrate has not properly
considered the record of the case,
documents and submissions of accused
and prosecution. In fact, he fully relied
upon the charge sheet submitted by the
Investigating Officer and proceeded to
reject the discharge application. She
reiterated that while deciding discharge
application, it is required on the part of
the Magistrate not to act as mere post
office, but discuss the material available
alongwith charge sheet before him. But,
in the present case without considering
same, rejected the discharge application.

12. She further submitted that after
rejecting the discharge application, learned
Magistrate proceeded to frame charges vide
second impugned order dated 22.2.2023,
which is also bad in light of argument made
hereinabove as well as law laid down by
this Court. In support of his contention he
has placed reliance upon the judgment of
Apex Court in the cases of Sanjay Kumar
Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Passed in Criminal Appeal No. 472 of
2021, Sidhique Kappan vs. State of U.P.
through
Principal
Secretary
Home
Lucknow reported in 2023 0 Supreme
(All) 140. Smt. Shila Devi vs. State of U.P.
and another passed in Application U/S
482 No. 16386 of 2021 and Captain
Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd) vs. Hussain
Mohammad Shattaf reported in 2023 0
AIR (SC) 2480.

13. Per Contra, Mr. Rahul Kumar
Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 has vehemently opposed the
submission and submitted that in case any
person intentionally puts any person in fear
of injury and dishonestly induces the
person so put in fear to deliver to any
person any property, which amounts to
extortion, therefore, charge sheet has
rightly been submitted under Section 386
1 All. Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
963
IPC and accordingly charges were also
framed therein.

14. Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 about
Section 452 IPC firmly submitted that at
the home or inside the home is having no
difference.
It
is
nothing
but
misinterpretation of words and it is
undisputed from the FIR as well as
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C, accused persons have visited the
house of informant and they threatened
and abused the victim at there, which is
sufficient enough for submitting charge
sheet under Sections 452, 504, 506 & 507
IPC.

15. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 has also opposed the argument
made by the learned counsel for the
applicants about the Sections 386 & 389
IPC, but from the records, could not
demonstrate as to how case is made out
under Sections 386 & 389 IPC.

16. Learned AGA for the State has
also adopted the argument made by the
learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2.

17. I have considered the rivals
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record as well as judgments relied upon.

18. The issue before this Court is to
decide as to whether from perusal of FIR
as well as statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., any charge is made
out under Sections 386, 389, 452, 504, 506
& 507 IPC or not.

19. First of all, Court has to see about
the ingredients of Section 386 read with
Section 383 IPC are available in present
case or not upon which charge sheet has
been submitted and charges have also been
framed therein.

20. To appreciate the controversy,
Sections 383 and 386 IPC are quoted
herebelow:-

"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".

386. Extortion by putting a
person in fear of death or grievous hurt.-
Whoever commits extortion by putting any
person in fear of death or of grievous hurt o
that person or to any other, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

21. From perusal of the aforesaid
sections, it is apparently clear that for
extortion, delivery is necessary part and in
the present case, there is no allegation
either in the FIR or in the statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about
delivery of any property or any other things
as referred in Section 383 IPC.

22. This issue was before the Apex
Court in the matter of Isaac Isanga
Musumba (Supra) wherein Court has held
that unless property is delivered to the
accused person pursuant to the threat, no
offence of extortion is made out. Relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:-
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"3. We have read the FIR which
has been annexed to the writ petition as
Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that
the complainants have alleged that the
accused persons have shown copies of
international warrants issued against the
complainants by the Ugandan Court and
letters written by Uganda Ministry of
Justice & Constitutional Affairs and the
accused have threatened to extort 20
million dollars (equivalent to Rs.110
crores). In the complaint, there is no
mention whatsoever that pursuant to the
demands made by the accused, any amount
was delivered to the accused by the
complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as
to how an offence of extortion as defined in
Section 383, IPC is made out.

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'.

Hence,
unless
property
is
delivered to the accused person pursuant to
the threat, no offence of extortion is made
out and an FIR for the offence under
Section 384 could not have been registered
by the police."

23. Similar matter was also come up
before this Court in the matter of
Bhupinder Singh (Supra) wherein Court
after considering the provision of Section
389 IPC in detail, held that ingredients of
Section 386 IPC is not fulfilled, therefore,
no case is made out under Section 386 IPC.
Relevant paragraph of the said judgment
are quoted hereinbelow:-

"10. He further submits that no
offence under Sections 386, 506 IPC is
made out against the applicants and
learned Magistrate has committed grave
error in summoning the applicants to face
the trial under the aforesaid sections.

11. The submissions of the
learned counsel for the applicants may be
summed up as under:

(1) No offence under Sections
386, 506 IPC can be said to be made out
from the allegations made under the
complaint.

(2) The complainant has prima
facie failed to demonstrate that the
elements of Section 383 IPC are available
to maintain the criminal complaint.

(3) The Courts below i.e. the
learned Magistrate as also the Revisional
Court failed in its duty to ascertain that all
elements provided for in Section 383 IPC
were available and attracted in order to
maintain the criminal complaint.

12. In order to appreciate the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
applicants, it would be apt to consider the
provisions of Sections 386, 506 I.PC.
Section 386 IPC provides for punishment
for extortion by putting a person in fear of
death or grievous hurt. What would
constitute extortion is provided under
Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code,
which reads as under:

"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
1 All. Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
965
signed or sealed which may be converted
into
a
valuable
security,
commits
"extortion"."

13. 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.

Section 386 IPC reads as under:

"386. Extortion by putting a
person in fear of death or grievous hurt. -
Whoever commits extortion by putting
any person in fear of death or of grievous
hurt to that person tor to any other, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."

14. It would also be appropriate
to understand the words "Valuable and
Security" appearing in Section 383 IPC.

15.
The
term
"Valuable
as
defined in Blacks' Law Dictionary meansWorth a good price, having financial as
market value. The term "Security" as
defined in the Dictionary means:-

1. Collateral given or pledged to
guarantee the fulfillment of an obligations;
esp. the assurance that a creditor will be
repaid (sus. With interest) any money or
credit extended to a debtor. 2. A person
who is bound by some type of guarantee;
SURETY. 3. The stat of being secure, esp.
from danger or attack. 4. An instrument
that
evidences
the
holder's
on
an
investment in a common enterprise. Under
an important statutory definition, a security
is any interest or instrument relating to
finances, including a note, stock, treasury
stock,
bond,
debenture,
evidence
of
indebtedness, certificate of interest or
participation in a profit sharing agreement,
collateral trust certificate, reorganization
certificate or subscription, transferable
share, investment contract, voting trust
certificate, certificate of deposit for a
security, fractional undivided interest in
oil, gas, or other mineral rights, or
certificate of interest or participation in,
temporary or interim certificate for, receipt
for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to
subscribe to or purchase any of these
things. A security also includes any put,
call, straddle, option, or privilege on any
security, certificate of deposit, group or
index of securities, or any such device
entered into on a national securities
exchange, relating to foreign currency. 15
USCA {77b(1) Cf. SHARE(2); stock (4).

16. Now, having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, the
Court is of the opinion that no case under
Section 386 IPC can be said to be made out
against the applicants from the allegations
set out in the criminal complaint lodged
against them. The reasons for the same are
as under:-
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) The blank papers allegedly
got signed by the applicants from the
complainant were never converted into a
valuable security. The said blank papers
were never used before the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana. There is
no allegation in this regard in the
complaint or in the statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

(2) The records reveal that the
case before the Labour Court, Ludhiana is
Reference No.1396 was got instituted on
27.08.2002 much after the lodging of the
complaint on 07.01.2002. On the date of
institution of the complainant i.e. on
07.01.2002 there was no proceedings
pending
before
the
Labour
Court,
Ludhiana, where the signed papers could
be utilized. Moreover, the proceedings
before the Labour Court, Ludhiana were
not pressed on the statement of the
authorized representative of the workman/
Opposite Party No.2 to the effect that he
does not press the reference for the time
being on account of technical error i.e.
wrong name of the opposite party and he
reserved the right to file fresh dispute after
rectifying the error. The reference was
answered accordingly with observation
that the workman will be at liberty to file
fresh dispute after rectifying the error if he
so desired vide order dated 02.06.2005
which has been filed on record by th386.
Extortion by putting a person in fear of
death or grievous hurt.-Whoever commits
extortion by putting any person in fear of
death or of grievous hurt o that person or
to any other, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.e applicants.

(3)
The
Opposite
Party
No.2/Complainant has miserably failed to
demonstrate that ingredients of Section 383
IPC are available in the complaint so
instituted so as to warrant criminal
prosecution of the applicants under Section
386 IPC.

(4)
The
factum
that
after
withdrawal of the case before the Labour
Court, Ludhiana no fresh claim was
instituted despite liberty having been
granted to the Opposite Party No.2 goes a
long way in establishing the falsity of the
case against the applicants. The criminal
complaint against the applicants can safely
be said to have been instituted maliciously
with ulterior motive and as such is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive and is an
abuse of the process of the Court.

(5)
The
allegations
in
the
complaint regarding criminal intimidation
at the instance of the applicants have been
made only to add colour to the complaint.
The alleged occurrence of the incident
appears to be improbable in the wake of
the allegations set out in the complaint. No
offence under Section 506 IPC can be said
to be made out against the applicants.
ownership right to firm (e.g. a stock), the
holder's creditor relationship with a firm or
Government (e.g. a bond). *A security
indicates
an
interest
based
on
an
investment in a common enterprise. Under
an important statutory definition, a security
is any interest or instrument relating to
finances, including a note, stock, treasury
stock,
bond,
debenture,
evidence
of
indebtedness, certificate of interest or
participation in a profit sharing agreement,
collateral trust certificate, reorganization
certificate or subscription, transferable
share, investment contract, voting trust
certificate, certificate of deposit for a
security, fractional undivided interest in
oil, gas, or other mineral rights, or
1 All. Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
967
certificate of interest or participation in,
temporary or interim certificate for, receipt
for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to
subscribe to or purchase any of these
things. A security also includes any put,
call, straddle, option, or privilege on any
security, certificate of deposit, group or
index of securities, or any such device
entered into on a national securities
exchange, relating to foreign currency. 15
USCA {77b(1) Cf. SHARE(2); stock (4).

16. Now, having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, the
Court is of the opinion that no case under
Section 386 IPC can be said to be made out
against the applicants from the allegations
set out in the criminal complaint lodged
against them. The reasons for the same are
as under:-

(1) The blank papers allegedly
got signed by the applicants from the
complainant were never converted into a
valuable security. The said blank papers
were never used before the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana. There is
no allegation in this regard in the
complaint or in the statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

(2) The records reveal that the
case before the Labour Court, Ludhiana is
Reference No.1396 was got instituted on
27.08.2002 much after the lodging of the
complaint on 07.01.2002. On the date of
institution of the complainant i.e. on
07.01.2002 there was no proceedings
pending
before
the
Labour
Court,
Ludhiana, where the signed papers could
be utilized. Moreover, the proceedings
before the Labour Court, Ludhiana were
not pressed on the statement of the
authorized representative of the workman/
Opposite Party No.2 to the effect that he
does not press the reference for the time
being on account of technical error i.e.
wrong name of the opposite party and he
reserved the right to file fresh dispute after
rectifying the error. The reference was
answered accordingly with observation
that the workman will be at liberty to file
fresh dispute after rectifying the error if he
so desired vide order dated 02.06.2005
which has been filed on record by the
applicants.

(3)
The
Opposite
Party
No.2/Complainant has miserably failed to
demonstrate that ingredients of Section 383
IPC are available in the complaint so
instituted so as to warrant criminal
prosecution of the applicants under Section
386 IPC.

(4)
The
factum
that
after
withdrawal of the case before the Labour
Court, Ludhiana no fresh claim was
instituted despite liberty having been
granted to the Opposite Party No.2 goes a
long way in establishing the falsity of the
case against the applicants. The criminal
complaint against the applicants can safely
be said to have been instituted maliciously
with ulterior motive and as such is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive and is an
abuse of the process of the Court.

(5)
The
allegations
in
the
complaint regarding criminal intimidation
at the instance of the applicants have been
made only to add colour to the complaint.
The alleged occurrence of the incident
appears to be improbable in the wake of
the allegations set out in the complaint. No
offence under Section 506 IPC can be said
to be made out against the applicants.

24. This issue was again come before
this Court in the matter of Mohammad
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ubaid (Supra) wherein Court has also
taken the same view. Relevant paragraph of
the
said
judgments
are
quoted
hereinbelow:-

"15. It is to be seen that in the
present case, allegation in the FIR are with
regard to demand of money by way of
extortion for sum of Rs.2 crore from a Village
Pradhan. The applicant also contested the
election
of
Village
Pradhan
against
informant and after election were over,
present FIR has been lodged for demand of
Rs.2 crore, which is alleged by the
prosecution to be extortion. The extortion has
been defined in Section 383 IPC, which is
reproduced hereinbelow:

"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"."

16. Under Section 383 IPC, one of
the essential ingredient is that to deliver to
any person any property or valuable security
or anything signed or sealed, which may be
converted into valuable security.

17. The Apex Court in Isaac
Isanga Musumba and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2014 (15) SCC 357 has held
that "

"3. We have read the FIR which
has been annexed to the writ petition as
Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that
the complainants have alleged that the
accused persons have shown copies of
international warrants issued against the
complainants by the Ugandan Court and
letters written by Uganda Ministry of
Justice & Constitutional Affairs and the
accused have threatened to extort 20
million dollars (equivalent to Rs.110
crores). In the complaint, there is no
mention whatsoever that pursuant to the
demands made by the accused, any amount
was delivered to the accused by the
complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as
to how an offence of extortion as defined in
Section 383 IPC is made out. Section 383
IPC states that

"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'. "

Hence,
unless
property
is
delivered to the accused person pursuant to
the threat, no offence of extortion is made
out and an FIR for the offence under
Section 384 could not have been registered
by the police."

25. Similar matter was also come
before this Court in the matter of Laxmi
Devi (Supra). Relevant paragraph of the
said judgments are quoted hereinbelow:-

8. अब न्यायालय को यह निर्ाारित
कििा है नक अवि न्यायालय द्वािा आवेदकगण
के नवरुद्ध आदेनिका पारित कििे में कोई
वैर्ानिक त्रुनि हुई है या िह ीं। इसके नलए
सवाप्रथम र्ािा 383, 384, 385 व 506 भा0दीं0सीं0
का उल्लेख कििा आवश्यक है जो निम्न है।

"383. उद्दापि- जो कोई नकस
व्यक्ति को स्वयीं उस व्यक्ति को या नकस अन्य
1 All. Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
969
व्यक्ति को कोई क्षनत कििे के भय में सािय
डालता है, औि तद्द्वािा इस प्रकाि भय में डाले
गए व्यक्ति को, कोई सम्पनि या मूल्यवाि
प्रनतभूनत या हस्ताक्षरित या मुद्ाींनकत कोई च ज
नजसे मूल्यवाि प्रनतभूनत में परिवनतात नकया जा
सके, नकस व्यक्ति को परिदि कििे के नलए
बेईमाि से उत्प्रेरित किता है, वह "उद्दापि"
किता है।

384. उद्दापि के नलए दण्ड- जो कोई
उद्दापि किेगा वह दोिोीं में से नकस भाींनत के
कािावास से, नजसक अवनर् त ि वर्ा तक क
हो सकेग , या जुमाािे से, या दोिोीं से, दक्तण्डत
नकया जायेगा।

385. उद्दापि कििे के नलए नकस
व्यक्ति को क्षनत के भय में डालिा- जो कोई
उद्दापि कििे के नलए नकस व्यक्ति को नकस
क्षनत के पहुुँचािे के भय में डालेगा या भय में
डालिे का प्रयत्न किेगा, वह दोिोीं में से नकस
भाींनत के कािावास से, नजसक अवनर् दो वर्ा
तक क हो सकेग , या जुमाािे से, या दोिोीं से,
दक्तण्डत नकया जायेगा।

506. आपिानर्क अनभत्रास के नलए
दण्ड- जो कोई आपिानर्क अनभत्रास का
अपिार् किेगा, वह दोिोीं में से नकस भाींनत के
कािावास से, नजसक अवनर् दो वर्ा तक क हो
सकेग , या जुमाािे से, या दोिोीं से, दक्तण्डत नकया
जाएगा।

यनद र्मक मृत्यु या घोि उपहनत
इत्यानद कारित कििे क हो- तथा यनद र्मक
मृत्यु या घोि उपहनत कारित कििे क , या अनि
द्वािा नकस सम्पनि का िाि कारित कििे क
या मृत्यु दण्ड से या आज वि कािावास से, या
सात वर्ा क अवनर् तक के कािावास से
दण्डि य अपिार् कारित कििे क , या नकस
स्त्र पि अक्तस्तत्व का लाींछि लगािे क हो, तो
वह दोिोीं में से नकस भाींनत के कािावास से,
नजसक अवनर् सात वर्ा तक क हो सकेग , या
जुमाािे से, या दोिोीं से, दक्तण्डत नकया जायेगा।"

9. र्ािा 383 भा0दीं0सीं0 में उद्दापि के
अपिार् का नवविण नदया गया है, नजसके
अिुसाि इस अपिार् के आवश्यक अवयव हैं:-
(I) अपिार् , नकस व्यक्ति को स्वयीं उस व्यक्ति
को या अन्य व्यक्ति को कोई क्षनत कििे के भय
में डालता है। (ii) क्षनत कििे का भय सािय हो,
(iii) अपिार् उस भय में डाले गये व्यक्ति को
कोई सींपनि या मूल्यवाि या हस्ताक्षरित या
मुद्ाींनकत कोई च ज नजसे मूल्यवाि प्रनतभूनत में
परिवनतात नकया जा सके, नकस व्यक्ति को
परिदि कििे के नलए बेइमाि से उत्प्रेरित किे।

10. उच्चतम न्यायालय िे इसाक
इसाींगा मुसुम्बा व अन्य प्रनत महािाष्ट्र िासि व
अन्य : (2014) 15 एस.स .स . 357 के मामले में
उद्दापि के अवयव पि नवचाि नकया औि यह
अवर्ारित नकया नक जब तक अपिार् द्वािा
उसको या अन्य व्यक्ति को सािय क्षनत पहुुँचािे
के भय के कािण व उसके द्वािा बेइमाि से
उत्प्रेरित होकि कोई सींपनि या मूल्यवाि या
हस्ताक्षरित या मुद्ाींनकत कोई च ज, नजसे
मूल्यवाि प्रनतभूनत में परिवनतात नकया जा सके,
नकस व्यक्ति को प्रदाि ि हो गय हो, तब तक
उद्दापि का अपिार् पूणा िह ीं हो सकता है।

11. वतामाि प्रकिण में अनववानदत
रुप से मृतका िे अपि माता (आवेदक सीं0 1)
से क्रय क गय भूनम को वापस िह ीं नकया है,
जो आपिानर्क परिवाद व र्ािा 200 व 202
दीं0प्र0सीं0 के अींतगात दजा ब्यािोीं के परिि लि से
भ पूणा रुप से परिलनक्षत होता है। अतः वतामाि
प्रकिण में उद्दापि के समस्त अवयव, प्रथम
दृष्ट्या भ पूणा िह ीं होते हैं। अतः वतामाि प्रकिण
में उद्दापि (र्ािा 383 भा0दीं0 सीं0) का कोई
अपिार् प्रथम दृष्ट्या भ िह ीं प्रकि होता है।
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अतः उसे र्ािा 384 भा0दीं0सीं0 के अन्तगात सजा
होिे के भ प्रथम दृष्ट्या मामला िह ीं बिता है।

12. अब न्यायालय को यह देखिा है
क्या र्ािा 385 भा0दीं0सीं0 (उद्दापि कििे के
नलए नकस व्यक्ति को क्षनत के भय में डालिा)
का अपिार् क्या पत्रावल पि उपक्तथथत
आपिानर्क परिवाद, र्ािा 200 व 202 दीं0प्र0सीं0
के ब्याि के मद्देिजि प्रथम दृष्ट्या बिता है या
िह ीं। आपिानर्क परिवाद व वाद व गवाहोीं के
ब्यािोीं में यह कथि नकया गया है नक
आवेदकगण वाद क पत्न पि जम ि पुिः
उिके िाम कििे का दबाव देिे लगे औि
मािनसक व िाि रिक रुप से उसको प्रताऩित
कििे लगे।

13. र्ािा 385 के अवयव उद्दापि का
प्रयास किते हुए नकस व्यक्ति को नकस क्षनत के
भय में डालिे या डालिे का प्रयत्न कििे का
अपिार् को वनणात किते हैं। वतामाि प्रकिण में
आपिानर्क परिवाद, र्ािा 200 व 202 दीं0प्र0सीं0
के ब्यािोीं से प्रथम दृष्ट्या वाद क पत्न को उद्दापि
कििे का प्रयास किते हुए उसको मािनसक व
िाि रिक प्रता़ििा पहुुँचािा कहा गया है। पिन्तु
इस िाते कैसे उसको भय में डालिे या डालिे का
प्रयत्न कििे का कोई नवनिष्ठ साक्ष्य या कथि
पत्रावल पि उपक्तथथत िह ीं है औि ि ह यह कथि
नकया गया है नक क्या मािनसक या क्या िाि रिक
प्रता़ििा पहुींचाय गई थ । अतः वतामाि प्रकिण में
र्ािा 385 भा0दीं0 सीं0 के अवयव प्रथम दृष्ट्या
उपक्तथथत ि होिे के कािण इस अपिार् के कारित
होिे का मामला भ िह ीं बिता है। इस प्रकाि
र्ािा 506 भा0दीं0सीं0 के भ अवयव भ उपक्तथथत ि
होिे के कािण भ उस अपिार् के घनित होिे का
प्रथम दृष्ट्या मामला िह ीं बिता है।

26. In the present case too, there is no
allegation either in the FIR or in the
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. about the delivery of any property
as
referred
in
Section
383
IPC.
Undisputedly no delivery has ever taken
place under fear or threat, which is
necessary requirement for Section 383 read
with Section 386 IPC. The very same
interpretation has been made by the Apex
Court in the matter of Isaac Isanga
Musumba (Supra) as well as other
judgments referred hereinabove. Therefore,
in light of facts of the case, provisions of
Section 383 read with Section 386 IPC, this
Court is of the firm view that no case is
made out for submission of charge sheet
and framing charges under Section 386
IPC.

27. Now coming to submission of
charge sheet under Section 389 IPC as well
as framing of charges under Section 389
IPC.

28. Section 389 IPC is relevant to
appreciate the controversy and same is
being quoted hereinbelow:-

389. Putting person in fear of
accusation of offence, in order to commit
extortion.-Whoever, in order to the
committing of extortion, puts or attempts to
put any person in fear of an accusation,
against that person or any other, of having
committed, or attempted to commit an
offence punishable with death or with
1[imprisonment
for
life],
or
with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to ten years, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and, if the
offence be punishable under section 377 of
this
Code,
may
be
punished
with
[imprisonment of life].

29. From perusal of Section 389 IPC,
it is apparently clear that there must have
1 All. Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
971
been fear of accusation of offence to
commit extortion, but from perusal of FIR
as well as statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation like this
in the present case.

30. This matter was very well
considered by the Gujarat High Court in
the case of Ritaben @ Ramaben W/O
Karnabhai Solanki (Supra). Relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are
quoted hereinbelow:-

9.3 Now, I shall make an
endeavor to examine whether the offence
under section 389 of IPC has been made
out against the applicants.

SECTION 389 : Putting person
in fear of accusation of offence, in order
to commit extortion:

Whoever,
in
order
to
the
committing of extortion, puts or attempts
to put any person in fear of an
accusation, against that person or any
other, of having committed, or attempted
to commit an offence punishable with
death or with imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the
offence be punishable under section 377
of this Code, may be punished with
imprisonment for life.

The reading of the provisions of
section
389
reveals
the
following
ingredients:

a) In order to commit extortion, a
person is put or an attempt is made to put
him in fear of an accusation.

b) Such fear is due to an
accusation of an offence or attempt to
commit such offence.

c) The offence being punishable
with death, imprisonment for life or for a
term extending to ten years.

9.4 In the present case, there is
no accusation alleged to have been made
by the petitioners to the first informant
accusing him an offence being punishable
with death, imprisonment for life or for a
term extending to ten years. The contents of
the FIR are blissfully silent on any of the
offences which attract the aforenoted
punishments. Hence, no offence can be said
to have been established under section 389
of IPC.

31. From perusal of FIR as well as
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of accusation
of offence. Therefore, considering the facts
of the case, provision of Section 389 IPC as
well as interpretation made by the Gujarat
High Court, this Court is of firm view that
in lack of fear of accusation of offence,
neither charge sheet can be submitted under
Section 389 IPC nor charges can be framed
therein.

32. Now coming to the point about
the submission of charge sheet under
Sections 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC and
framing of charges therein. From perusal of
FIR as well as statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is direct
allegation of presence of accused at the
residence of opposite party no.2 alongwith
threat and abuse. Defence of accused
cannot be seen at this stage, therefore, I
found no illegality in submission of charge
sheet under Sections 452, 504 & 506 IPC
as well as framing of charges therein.
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

33. The another aspect was about the
approach of Court while dealing discharge
application. This issue was very well
settled by the Apex Court in the matter of
Sanjay Kumar Rai (Supra). Relevant
paragraph of the said judgment are
quoted hereinbelow:-

15. The correct position of law
as laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra),
thus, is that orders framing charges or
refusing
discharge
are
neither
interlocutory nor final in nature and are
therefore not affected by the bar of
Section 397 (2) of CrPC. That apart, this
Court in the abovecited cases has
unequivocally acknowledged that the
High Court is imbued with inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process
or to secure ends of justice having regard
to
the
facts
and
circumstance
of
individual cases. As a caveat it may be
stated that the High Court, while
exercising its aforestated jurisdiction
ought to be circumspect. The discretion
vested in the High Court is to be invoked
carefully and judiciously for effective and
timely administration of criminal justice
system. This Court, nonetheless, does not
recommend
a
complete
hands
off
approach.
Albeit,
there
should
be
interference, may be, in exceptional
cases, failing which there is likelihood of
serious prejudice to the rights of a
citizen. For example, when the contents
of a complaint or the other purported
material on record is a brazen attempt to
persecute an innocent person, it becomes
imperative upon the Court to prevent the
abuse of process of law.

16. Further, it is well settled
that the trial court while considering the
discharge application is not to act as a
mere post office. The Court has to sift
through the evidence in order to find out
whether there are sufficient grounds to try
the suspect. The court has to consider the
broad probabilities, total effect of evidence
and documents produced and the basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on.
[Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal5]. Likewise, the Court has sufficient
discretion to order further investigation in
appropriate cases, if need be.

17.