Court quashed FIR in so far as it pertained to petitioners A-3 and A-4, holding extortion required inducing delivery of property after threats, which was not proven here.
Quashing of F.I.R. in crime No.86 of 2009 in so far as petitioners A-3 and A-4 are concerned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITIOIN No.4392 of 2009 and CRIMINAL PETITION No.5166 of 2009
Date: February 07, 2011
| CRIMINAL PETITIOIN No.4392 of 2009: |
|---|
| Between: |
| A. Jayalakshmi … Petitioner |
| And |
| 1. The State, represented through P.P, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another. … Respondents |
| *** * *** |
| CRIMINAL PETITION No.5166 of 2009: |
| Between: |
| Eda Soujanya … Petitioner |
| And |
| 1. The State, represented through P.P, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another. … Respondents *** * *** |
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITIOIN No.4392 of 2009 and CRIMINAL PETITION No.5166 of 2009
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners in both the petitions, A-3 and A-4, are accused of offences punishable under Sections 387, 389, 420, 421, 423, 424 read with 34 IPC in crime No.86 of 2009 of Mangalagiri (FCR) Police Station of Guntur District along with
others.
2. A-1 and A-2 are brothers, A-3 is wife of A-1, A-4 is mother of A-3. It is alleged that A-1 and A-2 purchased 218.61 bags of Paddy from the de facto complainant/second respondent on 02.5.2008 at the rate of Rs.680/- per bag, totalling Rs.1,48,779/and that subsequently with an intention to evade payment of the said amount, A-1, with a dishonest intention, executed a collusive, sham and nominal sale deed dated 16.02.2008 in respect of Ac.0.40 cents of land in Ramachandrapuram village in favour of Modugula Lavanya. It is further alleged that the second respondent and another went to house of A-2 where A-1 to A-5 were found and that when the second respondent and another demanded for payment of amount due and questioning nominal sale deed, all the accused threatened the second respondent to give up his claims against A-1 and A-2 and if not the second respondent would be involved and incriminated in criminal cases with life imprisonment and that A-3 and A-4 also threatened that they will not hesitate to launch criminal case against the second respondent punishable with life imprisonment on the ground of outraging her modesty.
3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that even if the allegations in the private complaint filed by the second respondent before the Magistrate and which complaint was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., they do not disclose the offences for which the case was registered against the petitioners-A-3 and A-4. In so far as the offences punishable under Sections 420, 421, 423 and 424 are concerned, A-3 and A-4 have no role. It is only A-2 who is stated to have executed a fraudulent and nominal sale deed in favour of Lavanya and it was A-1 and A-2 who obtained Paddy from the second respondent on
credit basis.
4. For the application of offences punishable under Sections 387 and 389 IPC, the basic offence of extortion as defined under Section 383 IPC is essential. Section 383 IPC reads as follows:
“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.”
None of A-3 or A-4 induced the second respondent to deliver any property or valuable security either to them or to any person by the alleged threats. Delivery of the property of Paddy stock was anterior in point of time and not posterior or simultaneous with the alleged threats. Therefore, neither Section 387 IPC nor Section 389 IPC has any application to the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 in this case, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on their face value. In that view of the matter, registration of crime against the petitioners and its investigation is not warranted by law and it would be an abuse of process of law.
5. In the result, both the criminal petitions are allowed quashing F.I.R. in crime No.86 of 2009 of Mangalagiri (FCR) Police Station in so far as the petitioners/A-3 and A-3 are concerned.
___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
Date: February 07, 2011. BSB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Sections 387 and 389 IPC apply to petitioners accused of only threatening respondents after property delivery.
Whether the alleged complaints disclose offences for which case was registered against petitioners A-3 and A-4.
Whether registration of crime and investigation against petitioners A-3 and A-4 is warranted by law.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
A. Jayalakshmi
Eda Soujanya
The State
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
