[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Naresh S/O Wasudeo Thakre vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps ... on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2704-DB
apl 1621-2024 J..doc 1/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1621/2024
Shri. Naresh s/o Wasudeo Thakre
Age- 51 years, Occupation- Service
Resident of : Plot No.:-84-B, Pande Layout,
Khamla Road, Nagpur - 440025.
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ranapratap Nagar,
Nagpur.
2. Shri. Ashwin s/o Mohanrao Karne
Age- Major, Occupation - Private,
Resident of :- Kelibagh Road, Badkas
Chowk, Mahal, Nagpur
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.H. Tekam, Advocate for applicant
Shri M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
Shri S.P. Bodalkar, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 10.02.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard. By consent of the parties, this matter is taken
for final disposal at admission stage.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashment
of the proceedings registered in S.C.C. No.14559/2024 arising out
of First Information Report No.194/2024 registered with Police
Station Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur for the offence punishable under
Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The applicant approached before this Court on the
ground that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and
to resolve the civil dispute, he has given a proposal to non-applicant
No.2. As such, there are no elements, which are attracted for the
offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code.
Hence, according to him, even First Information Report is accepted
in its entirety, the offence under Section 385 of the Indian Penal
Code is not made out in the matter and, therefore, seeks indulgence
of this Court to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings
registered against him.
4. The case of the prosecution in short is that non-
applicant No.2 lodged a complaint with Police Station on
07.05.2024 alleging therein that he being a partner of M/s
Inventive Construction Company Pvt. Limited, had purchased 20
acres of land Survey No. 16,21, 22, 23/1, 24/1, 25/1 of Mouza
Junapani, Khata No.91, Tahsil Hingana, District Nagpur, in auction
proceedings held on 03.03.2023 from State Bank of India, Branch
Ravinagar, Nagpur, for a valuable consideration of
Rs.6,93,00,000/-. It is also stated that in view of the purchase
through proper channel, the possession of the land was also handed
over to the complainant.
5. After taking possession of the land, the present
applicant along with his 4-5 associates illegally entered in to the
suit property and abused the security guard. They asked to stop the
work in the field by stating that he is the owner of the land and also
tried to fix the board over the said land. Hence, on this count, the
dispute arose between them in the matter. Later on, in the meeting
held at one Matadin Rambhandar Hotel, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur, on
13.02.2024, wherein the applicant asked him either to give
possession of the said land or pay him the amount of
Rs.1,50,00,000/- to withdraw the Civil Suit filed by him in respect
of the suit property. As such, on these allegations, offence under
Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered in the
matter.
6. The applicant, who approached before this Court has
relied upon Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code and pointed out
that to attract the offence under Section 385 of the Indian Penal
Code, the necessary ingredients are that accused must put the
person in fear of any injury or dishonestly induces the person to put
in fear to deliver any property. If these ingredients are not spelt out
by the complainant, then offence under Section 385 of the Indian
Penal Code is not attracted in the matter. For perusal of Section 385
of the Indian Penal Code is reproduced as under:
"Section 385.- Putting person in fear of injury in order to
commit extortion.-
Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts
any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear,
of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both."
7. The applicant in support of his submission has relied
upon the following case laws:
i) Isaac Isanga Musumba and others Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 357
ii) Shatrughan Singh Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh through the
Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs and others
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 2648
iii) Sri. N. Hanumegowda Vs. State of Karnataka and another in
Writ Petition No.15546 of 2019 (GM-RES)
8. The non-applicant No.2 has strongly opposed the
present application. According to the non-applicant No.2 while
considering the present case, the modus operandi of the non-
applicant No.2 is required to be taken into consideration, because
he is habitual in lodging such complaint against the builder who
purchased the land property, or if he gets knowledge about such
transaction that there are disputes in the properties then he used to
follow the same modus operandi by filing the civil suit and extort
the money from property dealers.
9. In support of this submission, the non-applicant No.2
has relied upon one First Information Report registered against the
present applicant at Police Station Dhantoli, in the year 2021 vide
Crime No.0039/2021. The perusal of the said First Information
Report shows that the offence under the Money Lending Act and
under the provisions of Sections 384, 386 and 364-A of the Indian
Penal Code, the offence is registered against the present applicant.
He has also relied upon one of the complaints filed by Gandhi
Builder and Developers to the Police Station Pratap Nagar, dated
12.01.2024, wherein also the present applicant has filed Regular
Civil Suit No.774/2009 regarding the title and possession of the
property. The said suit was dismissed by recording the finding that
the case of the applicant was based on forged and manipulated
documents. As such, according to the non-applicant No.2,
considering entire documents which he has collected in the matter,
it is clear that it is a modus operandi of the present applicant and,
therefore, considering this modus operandi, the offence of extortion
is attracted in the matter.
10. The non-applicant No.2 in support of this submission,
has relied upon the judgment of Balaji Traders Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another reported in (2025) 10 SCC 638, particularly in
paragraph Nos.10 and 14 of the judgment, which reads as under:
"10. Section 383 defines "extortion", the punishment
therefor is given in Section 384. Sections 386 and 388
provide for an aggravated form of extortion. These
sections deal with the actual commission of an act of
extortion, whereas Sections 385, 387 and 389 IPC seek
to punish for an act committed for the purpose of
extortion even though the act of extortion may not be
complete and property not delivered. It is in the process
of committing an offence that a person is put in fear of
injury, death or grievous hurt. Section 387 IPC provides
for a stage prior to committing extortion, which is
putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt "in
order to commit extortion", similar to Section 385 IPC.
Hence, Section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of Section
385 IPC, not Section 384 IPC.
14. Thus, it can be said in terms of Sections 386 (an
aggravated form of Section 384 IPC) and Section 387
IPC that the former is an act in itself, whereas the latter
is the process; it is a stage before committing an offence
of extortion. The legislature was mindful enough to
criminalise the process by making it a distinct offence.
Therefore, the commission of an offence of extortion is
not sine qua non for an offence under this section. It is
safe to deduce that for prosecution under Section 387
IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary."
11. Learned APP has supported the submission made by
the non-applicant No.2 and stated that the complaint is rightly
registered against the present applicant on the basis of specific
allegation raised by the complainant, therefore, at this stage, it is
not a fit case to interfere by this Court in the matter.
12. In view of this, I have firstly perused Section 385 of the
Indian Penal Code and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others (supra),
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the Section and
recorded its finding in paragraph No. 3, which are reproduced as
under:
"3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to
the writ petition as Annexure P-7 and we find
therefrom that the complainants have alleged that the
accused persons have shown copies of international
warrants issued against the complainants by the
Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry
of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the accused
have threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent
to Rs 110 crores). In the complaint, there is no mention
whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the
accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by
the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how
an offence of extortion as defined in Section 383 IPC is
made out. Section 383 IPC states that:
"383. Extortion.- 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'."
Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused
person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is
made out and an FIR for the offence under Section 384
could not have been registered by the police."
13. So also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salib
@ Shalu @ Salim Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in 2023 INSC
687, has occasioned to consider this provision and in this regard in
paragraph No. 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:
"22. So from the aforesaid, it is clear that one of the
necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that
the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the
delivery of the property must be with consent which has
been obtained by putting the person in fear of any
injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an
element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the
victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the
victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in
fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come
under this definition. It has to be shown that the person
was induced to part with the property by putting him in
fear of injury. The illustrations to the Section given in
the IPC make this perfectly clear."
14. From the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it is clear that the necessary ingredient to attract the offence
of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any
person any property which has been obtained by putting the person
in fear of any injury. So also, the will of the victim is required to be
overpowered by putting him in fear of injury. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that forcibly taking any property will not come
under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was
induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury.
Hence, for attracting this offence, the one of the important
ingredients is that the person must be induced and must be put in
fear of injury, then only the offence under Section 385 of the Indian
Penal Code is attracted in the matter.
15. In the present case, though non-applicant No.2 has
pointed out the modus operandi of the applicant of extorting the
various persons, it is pertinent to note that at the time of lodging
complaint or during the investigation, all these facts were not
brought to the notice of the investigating officer. So also, the
investigating officer did not collect any such incriminating material
in the entire investigation. Hence, this submission, in my opinion,
which is made first time before this Court by the non-applicant
cannot be accepted.
16. It is pertinent to note that the investigating officer has
recorded the statements of the persons who were present in the
meeting dated 13.02.2024. The statements of the said persons are
namely Sandip Vinod Samrudhe, Suraj Bhalavi. The perusal of the
statements of these persons clearly established the facts that there
was a healthy discussion in the meeting and there was an exchange
of proposals between them as the civil dispute is pending between
the parties. Therefore, considering the statements of both the
witnesses, prima facie, it is clear that the offence under Section 385
of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the applicant in
the matter.
17. It is also pertinent to note that the civil suit, which is
alleged to be filed with certain ulterior motive, after its perusal
shows that the said suit has been pending before the Civil Court
since 2009. The property which is purchased by the non-applicant
No.2 in the auction in the year 2023, therefore, it cannot be said
that this suit was filed with an ulterior motive by the present
applicant in the matter.
18. The non-applicant No.2 pointed out criminal
antecedents of applicant. The bare perusal of the said chart shows
that most of the offences are registered against the present
applicant as a money lender. Therefore, the facts and circumstances
of those cases may be of a different nature and same cannot be
considered in the present case. The applicant in this regard has
rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in case of Mohd. Wajid and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others reported in (2023) 20 SCC 219, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has specifically observed in paragraph No.43 as
under:
"43. The learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State vehemently submitted that
considering the gross criminal antecedents of the
appellants before us, the criminal proceedings may not
be quashed. The learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State in her written submissions has
furnished details in regard to the antecedents of the
appellants. A bare look at the chart may give an
impression that the appellants are history-sheeter and
hardened criminals. However, when it comes to
quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings, the
criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole
consideration to decline to quash the criminal
proceedings. An accused has a legitimate right to say
before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents
may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of
any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters
as laid down by this Court in Bhajan Lal, then the Court
should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the
ground that the accused is a history-sheeter. Initiation of
prosecution has adverse and harsh consequences for the
persons named as accused."
19. In light of the above said factual position, I am of the
considered opinion that the offence under Section 385 of the Indian
Penal Code is not made out against the present applicant and,
therefore, it will not be proper to continue the criminal proceedings
against the present applicant. For the reasons stated above, I
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The proceedings registered in S.C.C. No.14559/2024 arising
out of First Information Report No.194/2024 registered with Police
Station Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur for the offence punishable under
Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set
aside.
iii) Fees to the appointed Counsel be quantified as per Rules.
20. The application stands disposed of. No order as to the
costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/02/2026 20:17:22
