Uttarakhand High Court
Rampal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 3 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.347 of 2024
Rampal Singh ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A., for the State/1.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the
Applicant, seeking quashing of the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 64 of 2020, whereby
cognizance was taken against the Applicant under Sections 389 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The genesis of the case lies in an application moved by Respondent No.
2 under Section 156(3) CrPC, wherein he alleged that the Applicant had
demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and threatened to falsely implicate him
in a criminal case if the demand was not met. Pursuant to the said
application, FIR No. 152 of 2019 was registered at Police Station
Rudrapur under Sections 389 and 506 IPC.
3. Despite the final report being submitted in 2019, Respondent No. 2
filed a protest petition belatedly on 09.11.2023, more than four years
later. The learned Magistrate rejected the final report vide order dated
15.12.2023 and treated the protest petition as a complaint case. The
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 347 of 2024, Rampal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhandand Anr -
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6683
statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 of the
CrPC, and the statements of two witnesses, namely Roop Chand and
Naresh Kumar, were recorded under Section 202 of the CrPC.
4. On the basis of the protest petition and accompanying statements, the
learned ACJM passed the impugned order dated 19.06.2024, taking
cognizance under Sections 389 and 506 IPC against the Applicant.
5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the impugned order
suffers from manifest illegality, inasmuch as the basic ingredients of the
offences under Sections 389 and 506 IPC are not satisfied from the face
of the complaint, or any other material on record.
6. It is submitted that the gravamen of Section 389 IPC lies in putting a
person in fear of an accusation punishable with death, imprisonment for
life, or imprisonment up to ten years, with the intention of committing
extortion.
7. The foundational element of extortion, i.e., delivery of money or
property under coercion, is wholly absent in the present case. There is
merely an allegation of demand without any assertion that the
complainant ever delivered the said sum or parted with any property.
8. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no allegation that the
complainant was put in fear of an accusation of any particular offence
falling within the punishment thresholds contemplated under Section
389 IPC. The vague allegation that the Applicant threatened to falsely
implicate the complainant does not satisfy the rigour of the section.
9. As regards the charge under Section 506 IPC, it is submitted that the
offence of criminal intimidation requires a specific intent to cause
harm. The complaint merely alleges a threat, without any averment that
the threat was of such a nature or was intended to cause alarm, or that
any such harm was indeed caused.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 347 of 2024, Rampal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhandand Anr -
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6683
10. It is next contended that the proceedings are actuated by malice
and are manifestly attended with mala fides. Respondent No. 2 is an
encroacher on public land who has been restrained from illegal
occupation by the Applicant in his capacity as Mayor. Civil suits filed
by the complainant for regularization of possession have already been
dismissed. The protest petition is a weapon of reprisal filed four years
after the incident, clearly aimed at harassment.
11. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the learned
Magistrate has passed the impugned order after considering the protest
petition and examining the preliminary evidence. It was argued that at
the stage of cognizance, the Court is only required to prima facie assess
the existence of materials sufficient to proceed.
12. However, it was not disputed that the final report submitted in
2019 had found no case made out against the Applicant and that
proceedings under Section 182 IPC were recommended against the
complainant.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
14. The offence under Section 389 IPC contemplates a very specific
statutory architecture. To invoke its application, the following elements
must cumulatively exist:
(i) the accused must put or attempt to put a person in fear of an
accusation of having committed or attempted to commit an
offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or a term of
ten years.
(ii) such fear must be caused with the intent to commit extortion;
and
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 347 of 2024, Rampal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhandand Anr -
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6683
(iii) extortion, as defined under Section 383 IPC, mandates the
actual delivery of property or valuable security under the
influence of such threat.
15. In the present case, there is no allegation in the FIR, protest
petition, or accompanying statements that Respondent No. 2 delivered
any money or property to the Applicant. The allegation at best remains
a demand. No overt act of extortion has been asserted or established.
16. Furthermore, the alleged threat was to implicate the complainant
in a criminal case falsely. However, there is no specific assertion that
the threatened accusation pertained to an offence punishable with
death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term extending to
ten years. In the absence of this essential requirement, the invocation of
Section 389 IPC is legally untenable.
17. As regards Section 506 IPC, this Court finds that the complaint
does not allege that the Applicant had any intention to cause alarm. The
offence of criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC, which is the
genus offence, requires that the threat be issued with intent to cause
harm or to induce the victim to act or omit an act unwillingly. The
evidentiary material lacks the degree of gravity or intent required for
such a charge.
18. The long delay of over four years in filing the protest petition
further casts a serious shadow on the bona fides of the complainant.
Despite being served with notice on multiple dates in 2021 and 2022,
no steps were taken until late 2023. Such conduct is not compatible
with genuine grievance.
19. The final report filed by the Investigating Officer was not a
mechanical or perfunctory conclusion. Still, it was based on detailed
inquiry and findings that the complaint was false and had been filed to
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 347 of 2024, Rampal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhandand Anr -
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6683
stall proceedings concerning the encroachment of a piece of land. The
record shows that the complainant had also failed to secure interim
relief in related civil and writ proceedings, further substantiating the
Applicant's plea of malice.
20. In view of the above discussion, allowing the proceedings to
continue would amount to perpetuating a manifest abuse of the process
of law. It would cause grave injustice to the Applicant.
ORDER
The application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is allowed.
The impugned order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the learned
ACJM, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Criminal Case
No. 64 of 2020 (Kanta Parsad Gangwar v. Rampal Singh), taking
cognizance under Sections 389 and 506 IPC, is hereby quashed.
Consequently, the entire proceedings of Misc. Criminal Case No.
64 of 2020, arising out of FIR No. 152 of 2019, P.S. Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, are also quashed.
No order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:03.07.2025
NR/
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 347 of 2024, Rampal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhandand Anr –
Ashish Naithani J.