Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Praveen Kumar Arora vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:10188) on 20 February, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:10188]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1910/2017
Praveen Kumar Arora S/o Shri Manohar Lal, By Caste Arora, R/o-
Ward No.-10, New Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.The State Of Rajasthan.
2.Mohammed Amin S/o Shri Subhan Ali, by caste
Mohasmmedan, R/o-Ward No.-2, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil &
Distt. Hanumangarh.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Makkad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
Mr. Ravindra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/02/2025
1. The instant misc. petition has been preferred against the
order dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate and the
order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge in revisional jurisdiction whereby the cognizance was taken
by the learned Magistrate and revisional Court affirmed the same.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Dy.G.A. No one has appeared for the respondent No.2 –
Mohammed Amin.
3. A look over the notice issued by this Court revealing that the
same was received by the respondent No.2 on 15.12.2017,
however, he did not turn up. It can be presumed that he is not
interested to protest.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:57:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10188] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1910/2017]
4. The facts which are emanating from the material as made
available to this Court that the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR
alleging therein that he borrowed some amount from the
petitioner. For the purpose of security and guarantee, he handed
over a blank stamp to him. It was alleged that though, he
refunded the borrowed amount to the petitioner but he did not
return the stamp to him, rather threatening that he would do
misuse of the blank stamp by showing an agreement regarding
disposal of the shop or land.
A plain look even a glimpse over the content of the FIR do not
attract commission of an offence under Section 384 and 389 of
IPC. To the utter dismay of this Court, both the Judicial Officers
did not bother to look from this angle when even if the allegations
as levelled in the FIR are taken to be true on its face value without
rebutting it, still no offence under Sections 384 and 389 of the IPC
would make out.
5. Extortion is defined under Section 383 of the IPC and for the
ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
“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”.
Section 384 of IPC prescribes punishment for committing
offence of extortion.
6. A plain reading of the definition prescribed under Section 383 of
the IPC makes it abundantly clear that, for an offence of extortion
to be made out, there must be an immediate and direct fear of
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:57:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10188] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1910/2017]
injury or threat to life, compelling the victim to part with property,
valuable security, or anything signed or sealed that could be
converted into a valuable security. In the case of Isaac Isanga
Musumba & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2014) 15
SCC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that
unless the victim delivers anything to the accused under fear or
coercion, an offence of extortion is not constituted.
7. Section 389 of the IPC, which pertains to putting a person in
fear of an accusation of an offence to commit extortion, is
reproduced below for ready reference:
“Putting person in fear or 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.”
8. A careful examination of the above provision establishes that an
offence under Section 389 of the IPC is constituted only if the
accused demands something from the victim while threatening to
falsely implicate him in an offence punishable with death or life
imprisonment. The essential ingredients of Section 389 require
that there must be a threat. The threat must pertain to implicating
the victim in a false case, and the alleged false case must involve
an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment.
In the present case, the complainant alleges that he handed over
a blank stamp paper to the petitioner as security, which was not
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:57:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10188] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1910/2017]
returned upon demand. However, at no point does he allege that
the petitioner threatened to falsely implicate him in an offence
punishable by death or life imprisonment. Thus, the fundamental
ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 389
IPC are conspicuously absent.
9. The learned Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind while
taking cognizance of the matter. The revisional Court, i.e., the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, was duty-bound to examine
the legality and correctness of the order but failed to do so. Given
that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are entirely
lacking, allowing the proceedings to continue against the
petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, the petition deserves to be
allowed.
10. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed.
11. The order dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicail Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in
Case No.13/2013 as well as the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by
the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Suratgarh,
District Sri Ganganagar is quashed and set aside.
12. The petitioner is exonerated from the charges.
13. the stay petition is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
4-divya/-
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:57:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)