Bombay High Court

Ragunath Jagganath Kaulkar And Others. vs Puspa Sahebrao Wagh on 11 November, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:11950

Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2025
...

1] Ragunath s/o Jagganath Kaulkar,
Age: 53 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o: Behind Bus Stand, Jalgaon Jamod,
Tah.: Jalgaon Jamod, Dist.: Buldhana.

2] Nana s/o Shripat Dhandar,
Age: 53 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o: Uday Colony, Jalgaon Jamod,
Tah.: Jalgaon Jamod, Dist.: Buldhana.

3] Valmik s/o Shankar Thakre,
Age: 55 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o: Prabhakar Nagar, Jalgaon Jamod,
Tah.: Jalgaon Jamod, Dist.: Buldhana.

4] Bhagwan s/o Rajaram Devache,
Age: 48 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
R/o: Wadshingi, Tah.: Jalgaon Jamod,
Dist.:Buldhana

5] Nandkishor s/o Rameshwar Nimkarde,
Age: 53 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o: Behind Petrol Pump, Jalgaon Jamod,
Tah.: Jalgaon Jamod, Dist.:Buldhana.

... PETITIONERS

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

--VERSUS--

1] Puspa w/o Sahebrao Wagh,
Age: 53 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o: Behind Bus Stand, Jalgaon Jamod,
Tah.: Jalgaon Jamod, Dist.:Buldhana.

2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
P.S. Jalgaon Jamod.

... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.A. Naik, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. H.R. Gadhia with Mr. Aniket Sawal, Advocate for the
Respondent No.1.
Mr. Bhagwan M. Lonare, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2/State.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 11, 2025.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 09/05/2022

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon Jamod, in

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 73/2019 wherein issue

process order was passed and the order dated 23/04/2025

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, in

Criminal Revision Application No. 28/2022 whereby the

Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed against

the aforesaid order.

3. The respondent no. 1 initially lodged a complaint on

18/03/2019 with the Police Station, Jalgaon Jamod. As no

action was taken on the aforesaid complaint, respondent No. 1

herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 73/2019

before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon Jamod alleging

that petitioners operate 'Shri. Sant Tukaram Nagari Sahakari

Path Sanstha' on the ground floor of J.T. Patil Complex which is

situated in front of Bus Stand in Jalgaon Jamod. On

16/03/2019 between 8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m, the petitioners

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

came to the house of respondent no.1. As no male member of

the family was present at the relevant time, respondent no. 1

requested petitioners to come back. However, taking advantage

of absence of male members, petitioners forcefully entered her

house by pushing her and in threatening tone demanded that

they be permitted to put the board of their society in front of

her complex. They also stated that they have earlier made a

complaint to the Nagar Parishad to demolish the illegal

construction of respondent no. 1 and if respondent no. 1 pays

Rs. 5,00,000/- to them then no action on the said complaint

will be taken by the Nagar Parishad as the wife of accused no. 2

is a Councillor in Nagar Parishad belonging to Bhartiya Janta

Party (BJP). It has also been claimed that petitioners along with

pushing and threatening respondent no. 1 also used abusive

language against her and threatened to kill her if she refuses to

pay Rs. 5,00,000/-.

4. After recording the verification under Section 200 of

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned Magistrate,

by order below Exhibit No. 01 dated 25/08/2020, directed the

Police Station, Jalgaon Jamod, to submit a report under Section

202 of the said Code. Pursuant to the said direction, the Police

Inspector submitted a report dated 22/12/2020. Thereafter,

upon perusal of the record and the report submitted by the

Police Inspector, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Jalgaon Jamod, by order dated 09/05/2022, was pleased to

issue process against the present petitioners for offences

punishable under Sections 384, 448, 323, 294, and 506 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in accordance

with Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred

Criminal Revision No. 28/2022 before the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Khamgaon. By order dated 23/04/2025, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the

said revision petition. The present petition is filed against both

these orders.

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

5. Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioners, submits that even if the allegations made in

the complaint are taken as it is, the essential ingredients of

Sections 384, 448, 323, 294, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860, are not made out. He has invited my attention to the

complaint filed by the respondent. He further submits that as

the learned Magistrate was not satisfied on the basis of the

allegations made in the complaint, therefore, directed the

Police Station, Jalgaon Jamod, to submit a report under Section

202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Even the police

report after investigation / enquiry filed pursuant to the

Magistrate's direction does not disclose the ingredients of the

said offences. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have

considered that there was no material against the present

petitioners for issuance of process, and in the absence of such

ingredients, the Magistrate ought not to have issued the

process. He has also invited my attention to the judgment of

the Revisional Court and submits that even the Revisional Court

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

has failed to take into consideration that there are no

ingredients in order to satisfy the alleged offences. Accordingly,

he prays that the order issuing process, as well as the order

passed by the Revisional Court, be quashed and set aside. In

support of his submissions, Mr. Naik relied on the judgment in

the case of Shaikh Mujib and Others VS State of Maharashtra,

2017 SCC OnLine Bom 414 and the judgment of this Court in

the case of Amit Ashok Jagdale VS State of Maharashtra,

(Criminal Writ Petition No.240/2025).

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

respondent No. 1 submits that, insofar as the order issuing

process is concerned, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to

consider the entire material placed on record. It is for the

Magistrate to prima facie satisfy himself whether there are

adequate grounds to proceed against the accused. In this

regard, he has invited my attention to the allegations made in

the complaint. He submits that if the allegations in the

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

complaint are taken in its entirety, the offences alleged are

clearly made out. He further submits that the learned

Magistrate, after following the due process of law and after

recording verification and calling for a report under Section

202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has rightly issued

process. There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed

by the learned Magistrate. He has relied upon the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club Limited and Others VS

State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 690, in

order to buttress his submissions.

7. Upon hearing both sides, the undisputed facts are

that the respondent initially lodged a complaint with the Police

Station on 18/03/2019. However, it appears that the police did

not take cognizance of the said complaint, and therefore,

respondent No. 1 was constrained to file a private complaint

before the learned Magistrate. After filing the complaint,

verification of the complainant and witnesses were recorded

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It

appears, however, that the learned Magistrate was not satisfied

with the material placed on record and accordingly directed the

Police Inspector, Police Station Jalgaon Jamod, to submit a

report under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Police

Inspector submitted a report dated 22/12/2020, and thereafter,

the order of issuing process came to be passed. As per the

allegations in the complaint, the petitioners demanded an

amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent No. 1 in order to

prevent demolition of the alleged illegal construction of his

house. On 16/03/2019, at about 8:30 to 9:00 p.m., the

petitioners entered the house of the respondent, used filthy

language, and pushed the respondent by taking advantage of

the fact that there was no male member in the house. The

petitioners stated that they will insist the Nagar Parishad to

demolish the illegal construction of the complainant, as the

wife of accused No.2 is the Councillor in the Nagar Parishad

and belongs to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who is the

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

ruling party in the Nagar Parishad if the amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- was not paid. The petitioners assaulted the

respondent and also used abusive language. Based on these

allegations, the present complaint was filed.

8. After perusal of the complaint as well as the

verification statements of the complainant and the witnesses, it

is abundantly clear that the ingredients of Section 384 cannot

be said to be satisfied. In order to satisfy Section 384, it would

be useful to refer to the judgment in the case of Shaikh Mujib

(supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph

Nos.8, 9, 10, and 11, has held as under:-

"8. Perusal of aforesaid definition of extortion as
envisaged under section 383 of the IPC adumbrates that
following ingredients are required to be established to
constitute an offence under section 384 of the IPC and same
are also reproduced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph No. 6 of the Judgment in the case of Dhananjay
[2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1406 (S.C.)] supra, which read thus:

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

(i) The accused must put any person in fear of
injury to that person or any other person.

(ii) The putting of a person in such fear must be
intentional.

(iii) The accused must thereby induce the person
so put in fear to deliver to any person any
property, valuable security or anything signed.

(iv) Such inducement must be done dishonestly.

9. In the matter in hand, it reveals that
applicants on the day of incident visited to the Godown
of first informant - Parvaz Nazer Hussain Jaffery i.e.
respondent No. 2 herein and they placed demand of Rs.
10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to get premises vacated
occupied by them. The applicants have also given threats
of dire consequences if money is not paid to them. They
have also exhorted that they will not deliver the
possession of the premises in favour of respondent No. 2 -
first informant without money. These circumstances
reflect from the recitals of the FIR, categorically
demonstrate that there was no delivery of the property or
valuable security in favour of applicants - accused on the
part of first informant after putting him under fear.

10. We reiterate that, in order to constitute an
offence of extortion, it is essential to establish that

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

accused must put the victim in fear of injury to him or
any other person and thereby induces him dishonestly to
deliver any property or valuable security. As referred
supra the impugned FIR does not disclose all these
ingredients to constitute the cognizable offence under
section 384 of the IPC.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Isaac Isanga Musumba and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others [2015 ALL SCR 3483] referred
supra held that unless property is delivered to the
accused persons pursuant to the threat, no offence of
extortion is made out and the FIR for the offence of
extortion under section 384 could not have been
registered by the Police. In the case of Dhananjay alias
Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and another
[2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1406 (S.C.)] referred supra, the
Hon'ble Apex Court after appreciating the requirement of
section 384 of the IPC observed in paragraphs No. 10 to
13 as under:

"10. No allegations was made that the money
was paid by the informant having been put in fear of
injury or putting him such fear by the appellant was
intentional.

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

11. The first informant, admittedly, has also
not delivered any property or valuable security to the
appellant.

12. A distinction between theft and extortion
is well known. Whereas offence of extortion is
carried out by overpowering the will of the owner; in
commission of an offence of theft the offender's
intention is always to take without that persons'
consent.

13. We, therefore, are of the opinion that
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, no case under section 384 of the Penal Code
was made out in the first information report."

9. The Division Bench of the High Court has

categorically observed that in order to attract Section 384 of the

Indian Penal Code, unless and until there is no delivery of the

property or valuable security in favour of the accused, the

offence under Section 384 cannot be said to be complete.

While dealing with the said section, the High Court has referred

the Judgment of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others Vs. State of

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

Maharashtra and others [2015 ALL SCR 3483], wherein the

Supreme Court has held that "unless property is delivered to

the accused persons pursuant to the threat, no offence of

extortion is made out and the FIR for the offence of extortion

under section 384 could not have been registered by the

Police." Considering the exposition of law laid down by the

Supreme Court as well as the High Court, I am of the

considered view that the offence under Section 384 of the IPC

cannot be said to be made out even if the allegations in the

complaint are taken at their face value.

10. It is further to be noted that, insofar as Section 294 is

concerned, this Court in the case of Amit Ashok Jagdale (supra)

has held that mere use of abusive, filthy or unparliamentary

language is not sufficient in itself to attract the provisions of

Section 294 IPC, but there must be a further proof to establish

that it was to the annoyance of others and the words used must

satisfy the test of obscenity. While arriving at the aforesaid

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

conclusion, this Court has elaborately dealt and placed reliance

on the law laid down by the Apex Court and High Court. The

observations of this Court in paragraph nos. 9 and 13 are

relevant which read as under-

9. Under these circumstances, it would be useful to
refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in N.S.
Madhanagopal & Anr. VS. K. Lalitha (supra). While
considering the scope of Section 294, the Supreme Court has
observed as under:
" It is to be noted that the test of obscenity
under Section 294(b) of the I.P.C. is whether the
tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to
deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to
such immoral influences.

It has to be noted that in the instance case, the
absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements
arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract
the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records
disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be
the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire
obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is
hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or
defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under
Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

of IPC mere utterance of obscence words are not sufficient
but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to
the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one
has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and
in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words
uttered by the appellants accused annoyed others, it can not
be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294
(b) of IPC is made out.

13. Therefore, after considering the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to Section 294 of the
Indian Penal Code, it is evident that the mere use of abusive,
filthy, or unparliamentary language including the utterance
of the words referred to above (in the Marathi language) is
not sufficient, in itself, to attract the provisions of Section
294 IPC......"

Similarly, upon perusal of the complaint it is evident

that what obscene words are used have not been mentioned

and as there is absence of obscene words causing annoyance to

others therefore, even the ingredients of Section 294 are also

not fulfilled.

PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-516-2025

11. Therefore, both the Courts have failed to take into

consideration the basic ingredients of the offences punishable

under Sections 384 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code, and

therefore, committed grave error. It is to be borne in mind that

before issuing process by the Magistrate, it is expected to see

the contents of the complaint and after perusal of the contents