Rajat Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2023/3749/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC filed to quash criminal proceedings including charge-sheet and warrant. Court held that allegations in the FIR showed no delivery of property or valuable security, which is an essential ingredient for extortion. Impugned order setting aside cognizance under Section 386 IPC was set aside to be reviewed by trial court.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.06.2022 setting aside cognizance was set aside. Matter remitted to trial court to pass fresh order within 45 days.

Rajat Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37172

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3749 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajat Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi-I, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed with a prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings so far it relates to the petitioner with regard to Crl. Case No. 32838 of 2022 arising out of impugned charge-sheet no. 161 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 120 of 2022, under Sectons 386, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Raebareli and the impugned charge-sheet no. 161 of 2022 and the bailable warrant dated 16.03.2023.

¶8

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that the learned trial Court ignoring the provisions of Section 386 of IPC and the law settled thereof has taken cognizance and has summoned the present applicant, though it is evident from the assertion in the First Information Report itself that no valuable security was ever received by the present applicant. Adding his arguments, he submits that it is a settled law that to deliver any property or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into valuable security is one of the essential ingredient of an offence under Section 386 of IPC. He added that prima facie this is not a case where any property or valuable security has ever been delivered in consonance with the extortion while putting the complainant into fear for delivering the same. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgement reported in MANU/SC/0725/2013, in W.P. (Crl.) No. 80 of 2013, Isaac Isanga Musumba and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and has referred paragraph 2 of the aforesaid judgement.

¶9

Paragraph 2 of the judgement is extracted as under:-

¶10

"2. 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 ` 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, Indian Penal Code is made

¶11

out. Section 383, Indian Penal Code states that 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 KIR for the offence Under Section 384 could not have been registered by the police."

¶12

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the Hon. Apex Court has held that "unless property is delivered to the Accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out". He added that the case of the present applicant is also squarely covered with the ratio of the judgement aforesaid.

¶13

He has further placed reliance on a judgement passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2021, Rahees Yadav @ Krishn Gopal and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and has referred the following paragraph:-

¶14

" Thus, what is necessary for constituting an offence of extortion is that the prosecution must prove that on account of being put into fear of injury the victim delivers any particular property or valuable security to the person who puts him into a fear. If there was no delivery of any property or valuable security, then the important ingredient of an offence of extortion stands excluded.

¶15

The existence of "valuable security" is also an essential ingredient of the offence of extortion. Valuable security has been defined in Section 30 of I.P.C., as follows:-

¶16

"30. "Valuable security".--The words "valuable security" denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or where by any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right."

¶17

From bare reading of the said definition of valuable security, it is clear that valuable security comes into existence when a document creates extends, transfers, restricts, extinguishes or releases a legal right or where any person acknowledges that he/she lies under certain legal liability or that he does not have legal right.

¶18

Thus, valuable security can come into existence only when it has all the basic requisites recognized by law for a document to graduate into a valuable security. One of the essential features is that document should be signed by the maker since an unsigned document does not mature into a valuable security despite containing script pertaining to creation, extension, transfer, restriction, extinction or release of any legal right or acknowledgment of legal liability or absence of any right. The decision in the case of Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and another (2007) 14 SCC 768 is worthy of reference in this context. Paras 5 and 6 of the said decision being relevant are reproduced below:-

¶19

"5. Section 384 provides for punishment for extortion. What would be an extortion is provided under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code in the following terms:

¶20

"383. Extortion:- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any

¶21

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"."

¶22

6. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would demonstrate that the following ingredients would constitute the offence :

¶23

1. The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person.

¶24

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." "

¶25

Referring the aforesaid, he added that the ratio in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and Ors. (Supra) has been reiterated in the aforesaid judgement.

¶26

Relying on the aforesaid judgement, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is not a single whisper that putting into fear, no property or security or the valuable security has ever been delivered to the present applicant and thus the cognizance order including the summoning order vitiates in the eyes of law and therefore the submission is that the order dated 20.06.2020 may be set-aside.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned AGA for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the present applicant is involved in committing offence as is evident from the First Information Report itself and might be that the ingredients of Section 386 does not attract in the instant matter but other offences of IPC attracts and thus submission is that the order dated 20.06.2020 is not liable to be set aside.

¶28

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record it transpires that the Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 386 of IPC along with Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. Since from bare perusal of the assertion/allegation in the First Information Report it transpires that no valuable security or property was delivered to the applicant in putting the complainant in fear and thus the ingredients of Section 386 do not attract in the instant matter subject to correction that any other material available with the prosecution or in the case which could show that any property or valuable security was ever delivered to the present applicant. This Court has further noticed the fact that the Apex Court in so many cases has held that unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to threat or fear, no offence of extortion is made out.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussions the order impugned dated 20.06.2022 is hereby set aside.

¶30

The matter is remitted back to the trial Court concerned to pass fresh order within a period of 45 days, after considering the law laid down by the Apex

¶31

Court and the observations made hereinabove.

¶32

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is hereby disposed of .

¶33

Order Date :- 24.5.2023

¶34

Anurag

¶35

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajat Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleem and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Sushil Dixit @ Santosh Kumar Dixit and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and Another

Vipin Singh @ Bipin Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secty Home Civil Sectt U.P Gov. Lko and Another

Akash Kumar @ Aashu Shukla and 5 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Sarvjeet Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Karnail Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another