Bombay High Court
Rameshwar S/O Kaniram Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 October, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
(1) cri.appln 6166.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6166 OF 2016
Rameshwar S/o. Kaniram Jadhav
Age-44 years, Occ. Teacher,
R/o. Auditor Society, Harsool Parisar,
Aurangabad. ... Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Harsool,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Mohan S/o Pandurang Wankhede,
Age: 27 years, Occ: Agri. Service,
R/o Laxmi Colony, Ashok Nagar,
C/o Motiwalkar, Aurangabad. ... Respondents
Added address- Jaypur, Tq. Sengaon,
Dist. Hingoli
(Amended new address as per Court order dated 23.03.207)
-----
Mr. J.V. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A.R. Borulkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
Mr. M.L. Wankhade, Advocate for Respondent no.2.
-----
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 04.10.2017
JUDGMENT:- (Per Mangesh S. Patil J.)
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
both the sides the matter is heard finally.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of
(2) cri.appln 6166.16
Criminal Procedure seeking to quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing No.
I-155/2016 registered with Harsool Police Station, District Aurangabad on
17.10.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 384 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The F.I.R., in sum and substance is to the effect that
Respondent no.2 has been running Tuition classes for Spoken English in
the name and style as Eon Vertex Spoken English Classes. A girl by
name Payal was taking tuitions in that institute. During the oral test she
requested the respondent no.2 to have it in his chamber since she was
afraid of speaking in front of other students. According to her request,
the test was conducted, there was some conversation and the girl left the
class after giving thanks without any grievance. However, in the
afternoon the father of the girl and the present applicant called upon the
respondent no.2 and started alleging that he was harassing the girl.
Since thereafter the applicant repeatedly called him and demanded an
amount threatening that if the amount was not paid, they would lodge a
complaint against him. Thus, since 16.10.2016 such demand was made
and when the demand was raised to Rupees 50,000/-, the respondent
no.2 lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of which, the offence was registered
against the applicant as mentioned herein-above.
(3) cri.appln 6166.16
4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant. He
has relied upon the decision in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and
Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors; (2014) 15 SCC 357 and in
the case of R.S. Nayak V/s. A.R. Antulay and Anr; AIR 1986 SC
2045. The learned Advocate for the applicant, vehemently submitted
that in the absence of actual proof of demand and the delivery of amount
the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 384 could not be
made out. Since the F.I.R. does not read about any amount having been
paid by the respondent No.2 to the applicant, the necessary ingredient of
the offence of extortion punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal
Code is missing and the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. submitted that though in the
original complaint lodged by respondent no.2 there is no reference to
demand of any amount by him to the applicant, during the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that the amount of
Rs.10,000/- was in fact paid to the applicant by the respondent no.2 and
specific reference can be found in careful reading of the F.I.R. Therefore,
according to the learned A.P.P,. the decisions cited on behalf of the
applicant (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case. The learned A.P.P. also adverted our attention to the transcription
(4) cri.appln 6166.16
of the telephonic conversation that took place between the applicant and
the respondent no.2 and the latter's wife which further corroborates the
fact that the applicant did extort the amount.
6. We have gone through the original papers produced by the
learned A.P.P. as well as the case laws cited by the learned Advocate for
the applicant. A careful perusal of the F.I.R. Exhibit-A clearly shows that
the allegations are not only restricted to hollow demand for money but in
fact the amount was tendered by the respondent no.2 and received by
the applicant, in presence of panchas. In view of such material, the
applicant is not entitled to seek any benefit from the decisions of the
Supreme Court cited (supra), since prima facie there is material to show
that the applicant did receive the amount of Rs.10,000/-.
7. Besides, the call data record further prima facie corroborates
the version of the respondent no.2 that the amount was extorted from
him by the applicant making out the necessary ingredient for constituting
the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. A reference can be made to the up quoted decision in the
case of State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal (1992) AIR SC 604 and the
guidelines laid down therein. By no stretch of imagination, the
(5) cri.appln 6166.16
allegations in the F.I.R. in the matter in hand can be said to be following
short leave alone are absurd or manifest so as to invoke the powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or for quashing it.
9. In view of such state of affairs and material on record, we are
satisfied that the F.I.R. prima facie makes out the ingredients for
constituting the offence of extortion punishable under Section 384 as well
as for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal
Code.
10. The application, therefore, is liable to be rejected and is
accordingly rejected. Rule stands discharged accordingly.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
KAKADE
