IPC, S. 383 – Not only putting a person under fear of any injury and dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver the property but also actual delivery of property are a sine-qua-non of the offence of extortion, as defined under Section 383 IPC –
IPC, S. 120A – Criminal agreement can be ascertained from surrounding facts and circumstances, as such agreement need not always be express and can, most of the times, be tacit.
IPC, Section 506 – Telephonic threats made/received when complainant was out of India – No jurisdiction in India
- For the offence of extortion under Section 383 IPC to be made out, it is not only necessary that the person must be put in fear of injury or grievous hurt, but also dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver property or valuable security is equally necessary.
- Actual delivery of property is also a sine-qua-non of the offence of extortion, as defined under Section 383 IPC.
- No offence of extortion, punishable under Section 387 IPC, read with Section 383 IPC, is prima facie made out against any of the applicants.
- Pressurizing someone to give up their demand for repayment of money is not extortion as per Section 383 IPC.
- An fir must mention basic facts from which an inference can be drawn about the commission of a cognizable offence.
- If the core features of an offence are not stated in the FIR, it would not be a first information report relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, as contemplated under Section 154 of the Code of 1973, and no investigation can be initiated by the police upon such information.
- For an offence of criminal conspiracy, the requirement is that of an agreement between two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act, which is not illegal, by illegal means.
- The complainant has nowhere alleged that there was any agreement for issuing threats or death threats to the complainant between the person who was calling him and the two applicants.
- Even the call details do not reveal any circumstances indicating, prima facie, the presence of such conspiracy.
- Pressurizing someone into giving up their demand for repayment of money is out of the scope of extortion as defined under Section 383 IPC.
- The FIR, taken at its face value, does not disclose that the threats issued were for compelling the complainant to deliver property and that there was indeed delivery of property or valuable security because of those threats.
- Telephonic threats made/received when the complainant was out of India do not disclose any cognizable and non-bailable offence punishable under Section 506 IPC in Greater Mumbai.
- There was one more threat call received when the complainant was in India, but there is no allegation made against either of the applicants nor is there any allegation to the effect that this threat was issued at the bidding of the applicants.
- The offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 IPC, as disclosed in the FIR, is prima facie non-cognizable and bailable, and, therefore, on the basis of such an offence, no criminal law could have been set in motion without permission of the Magistrate.
- (2023-2)210 PLRIJ 027 : ; 2023 PLRonline 0104
- Full Judgment with detailed headnotes for Online Subscribers (Click to subscribe Trial Pack)
