Allowed

Shahina Bano v. Wasim Akhter Warsi

Orissa HC22 Oct 2025CRLMC/928/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of cognizance in an extortion complaint filed by a brother against his widowed sister and nephews over a demand for money to vacate his house. Holding the dispute essentially civil, the Court quashed the cognizance order as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Order of cognizance dated 18.12.2021 in I.C.C. Case No. 256 of 2021 quashed; CRLMC allowed.

Shahina Bano Vs Wasim Akhter Warsi — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.928 of 2022

¶2

Sahina Bano and Others …. Petitioners

¶3

Mr. B. K. Sharma, Senior Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Wasim Akhter Warsi

¶6

…. Opp. Party

¶7

Mr. Mohammed Mustak, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶10

Date of Judgment: 22.10.2025

¶11

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

¶12

By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Sambalpur, in I.C.C. Case No. 256 of 2021, whereby the learned court took cognizance of the offences alleged against the Petitioners pursuant to a complaint filed by the Opposite Party under Sections 384/506/34 of the IPC.

¶13

The background facts of the case are that the Petitioners and the Opposite Party are related to each other. Petitioner No.1, a widow, is the biological sister of the Opposite Party, while Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are her sons. As the Petitioners had no residence of their own, they were permitted to occupy a house belonging to the Opposite Party on rent in the year 2013-14. At that time, the Opposite Party was residing abroad in the United Kingdom.

¶14

CRLMC No.928 of 2022

¶15

Page 1 of 9

¶16

With the passage of time, the Opposite Party got married and continued to reside abroad, while his family remained at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundargarh, Odisha. During one of his visits to India, the Opposite Party required the said house at Sambalpur, which was in the occupation of the Petitioners, for his own use and requested Petitioner No.1 to vacate the same so that he could stay there with his family. This request allegedly created a sense of insecurity in the minds of the Petitioners. Consequently, despite repeated requests from the Opposite Party to vacate the premises, Petitioner No.1 did not comply. On the contrary, Petitioner No.1, along with her two sons, allegedly resorted to unethical means to avoid vacating the house.

¶17

It is alleged that in December 2020, when the Opposite Party warned Petitioner No.1 and called for a family meeting, she reacted aggressively and demanded a sum of ₹3,00,000 from him as a precondition for vacating the house. She is further stated to have challenged the Opposite Party’s right and title over the said property. The Opposite Party, in order to regain possession of his house, allegedly succumbed to this unlawful demand and paid ₹3,00,000 in cash to the Petitioners. Upon receipt of the said amount, the Petitioners vacated the premises, enabling the Opposite Party and his family to take possession thereof. The Opposite Party claims that, in order to meet the said demand, he had to obtain a loan, and that he was dishonestly induced by the Petitioners, who extorted the money by putting him under immense fear of injury.

¶18

According to the Opposite Party, the Petitioners intentionally put him and his family in fear of dispossession from

¶19

CRLMC No.928 of 2022 Page 2 of 9

¶20

their residential house and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver ₹3,00,000 to them, thereby committing extortion. It is further alleged that, despite timely steps taken by the Opposite Party, the investigating agency failed to secure the ends of justice and acted in a mala fide manner with an ulterior motive by not taking appropriate action against the serious and heinous offences allegedly committed by the accused persons.

¶21

The allegations made by the Opposite Party culminated in a complaint case registered as I.C.C. Case No. 256 of 2021, in which the learned court took cognizance of the offences alleged. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present application seeking quashing of the impugned order.

¶22

Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, during the course of hearing, strenuously argued that none of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 384/506/34 of the IPC are satisfied from the averments made in the complaint or from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 of the CrPC. He further submitted that the entire allegation rests upon the admitted fact that the Petitioners were occupying the house of the Opposite Party with his consent and subsequently vacated the same. The alleged payment of money by the Opposite Party under duress is, according to the Petitioners, entirely false and misconceived. It is inconceivable that the Opposite Party, being a highly educated and literate person, would characterise such payment as extortion, particularly when, in his own complaint, he has stated that he extended financial support to

¶23

CRLMC No.928 of 2022 Page 3 of 9

¶24

Petitioner No.1 keeping in view her financial condition and their close familial relationship.

¶25

It is thus contended that the amount, if paid at all, cannot be termed as extortion rather as financial assistance extended to facilitate the Petitioners’ rehabilitation in a separate establishment. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the fact that the Opposite Party has instituted a civil suit against Petitioner No.1 seeking a declaration that the registered Sale Deed bearing No. 11621301591, executed and registered on 10.05.2018 under the seal and signature of the DSR, Sambalpur, is null and void, and for declaration of his right, title, and interest over the suit property, clearly demonstrates that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. The present criminal proceeding, therefore, has been maliciously instituted to give a colour of criminality to what is essentially a civil dispute.

¶26

Mr. Mustak, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party, argued that the allegations made in the complaint clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 384, 506, and 34 of the IPC, and that the learned court below has rightly taken cognizance thereof after due application of mind. He submitted that the Petitioners, by taking undue advantage of their close familial relationship with the Opposite Party, had unlawfully occupied his residential house at Sambalpur and, when requested to vacate the same, resorted to intimidation and coercion. It was further contended that Petitioner No.1, along with her two sons, threatened the Opposite Party with dire consequences and put him under immense fear of harm to himself and his family,

¶27

CRLMC No.928 of 2022 Page 4 of 9

¶28

compelling him to pay a sum of ₹3,00,000 in cash in order to regain possession of his property. The learned counsel submitted that such acts clearly satisfy the ingredients of “extortion” as defined under Section 383 of the IPC, since the Petitioners intentionally put the Opposite Party in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver money to them.

¶29

He further submitted that the plea of the Petitioners that the amount was voluntarily paid as financial assistance is an afterthought, devised only to escape criminal liability. The conduct of the Petitioners in refusing to vacate the premises despite repeated requests, followed by their demand for a monetary payment as a precondition for vacating the house, demonstrates a deliberate design to extract wrongful gain. Learned counsel also contended that the pendency of a civil suit between the parties does not ipso facto preclude criminal prosecution, as both civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously if the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie made out. It was, therefore, urged that the present application seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding is devoid of merit and has been filed only to delay the process of law. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record, the principal question that arises for consideration is whether, on the basis of the averments made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, a prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners for the offences alleged under Sections 384, 506, and 34 of the IPC, or

¶31

CRLMC No.928 of 2022 Page 5 of 9

¶32

whether the dispute is essentially of a civil nature, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

¶33

It is pertinent to note that, vide order dated 22.08.2025, this Court had referred the matter for mediation through the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, keeping in view the fact that the parties are close family members and the dispute concerns family and property matters. However, the mediation process could not yield any fruitful result, and no amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties. The matter has, therefore, been taken up for adjudication on merits.

¶34

In this context, reference can be made to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the matter of S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. , reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 758 ¸ as follows: -

¶35

“ 42 . Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same person(s), the answer stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani v M Hari Narayana , (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v State (Delhi Admn.) , (2009) 5 SCC 528 . The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even if having a civil flavour to them, must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the

¶36

CRLMC No.928 of 2022

¶37

Page 6 of 9

¶38

Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed. In this connection, Paramjeet Batra v State of Uttarakhand , (2013) 11 SCC 673 can be referred to:

¶39

‘ 12 . … Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.’

¶40

(emphasis supplied)

¶41

43 . In Usha Chakraborty v State of West Bengal , (2023) 15 SCC 135 , while quashing the FIR therein and further proceedings based thereon, it was observed ‘… the factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. ’”

¶42

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Petitioners and the Opposite Party are closely related. Petitioner No.1 is the real sister of the Opposite Party, and Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are her sons. The materials on record reveal that the Petitioners were permitted by the Opposite Party to occupy his house property at Sambalpur in or around 2013-14, as they did not have a residence of their own. Subsequently, the Opposite Party, having returned to India, required the said house for his own use and requested the Petitioners to vacate it. The allegations of the Opposite Party are

¶43

CRLMC No.928 of 2022 Page 7 of 9

¶44

that the Petitioners refused to vacate the premises and demanded a sum of ₹3,00,000 as a precondition for doing so, thereby committing the offence of extortion.

¶45

The undisputed facts reveal that the Petitioners were in occupation of the Opposite Party’s house with his consent and subsequently vacated the same. The allegation of payment of ₹3,00,000, though claimed by the Opposite Party to have been made under duress, is not supported by any contemporaneous material, and the FIR lodged thereafter does not disclose the ingredients of the offences under Sections 383 and 506 IPC.

¶46

Furthermore, demanding the vacation of a rented or occupied house, by itself, does not constitute the offence of extortion. Extortion, as defined under Section 383 IPC, necessarily involves an intentional act of putting a person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly inducing them to deliver property. In the present case, the background in which the Petitioners were permitted to occupy the house by the Opposite Party, coupled with their close familial relationship, rules out any such element of force or criminal intent. Petitioner No.1 is a widow, and the Opposite Party is her real brother. The alleged “tug of war,” if any, between them cannot, by any stretch of imagination, bring the alleged demand for money in lieu of vacating the house within the mischief of Section 384 IPC.

¶47

This, viewed in the context of a brother having permitted his widowed sister and her children to reside in his house out of compassion, the allegations cannot reasonably be interpreted as disclosing criminality in the true sense of the offence alleged. On

¶48

CRLMC No.928 of 2022

¶49

Page 8 of 9

¶50

the contrary, the Opposite Party himself has instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and invalidation of a sale deed, which indicates that the dispute pertains primarily to ownership and possession of immovable property. At best, the alleged demand for money may be viewed as a form of familial or emotional pressure in the backdrop of a property dispute, but it does not satisfy the essential ingredients of extortion or criminal intimidation so as to attract criminal liability.

¶51

Having regard to the totality of circumstances, this Court finds that the allegations, though couched in criminal language, are essentially civil in nature, arising from a familial dispute over possession and ownership of property. The pendency of civil proceedings between the parties on the same subject matter further substantiates the civil character of the dispute.

¶52

In view of the aforesaid principles, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute between the parties is predominantly civil in nature, and the continuation of the impugned criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶53

In the result, the order of cognizance dated 18.12.2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Sambalpur, in I.C.C. Case No. 256 of 2021 stands quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of as allowed.

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication AKPradhan Location: HIGH COURT ORISSA Date: 23-Oct-2025 17:55:25

¶56

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶57

CRLMC No.928 of 2022 Page 9 of 9

Shahina Bano v. Wasim Akhter Warsi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahina Bano v. Wasim Akhter Warsi

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

Satya Priya Jayasingh Vs State of Odisha(Eow)

Rakesh Ratan Nath Vs Depanjali Nayak

Sushanta Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Gopal Prasad Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa

Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs State of Orissavig.

Jagannath Purty Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)