[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Md. Arif S/O Abdul Shakur Rangoonwala ... vs Sate Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Tehsil Nagpur ... on 30 March, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:5119-DB

                                             1           39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt




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

                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 409 OF 2023

                  1. Md. Arif s/o Abdul Shakur
                     Rangoonwala
                     Aged 70 years, Occ: Business,

                  2. Md. Haris s/o Arif Rangoonwala,
                     Aged 36 years, Occ: Business,

                  3. Md. Zain s/o Arif Rangoonwala,
                     Aged 31 years, Occ: Business,
                     Nos. 1 to 3 All R/o 140, RMS Colony
                     Jaffer Nagar, Nagpur.                       APPLICANTS

                        Versus

                  1. State of Maharashtra,
                     Thr. Police Station Officer, Police
                     Station Tehsil, Nagpur City.

                  2. Asad Ali Hifajat Hussain,
                     Aged Major, Occ: Business,
                     R/o House No.90, Sadikabad Colony,
                     New Passport Office, Mankapur,
                     Nagpur Tahsil and District Nagpur. NON-APPLICANTS


                -----------------------------------------------
                Mr. Nazim Qureshi, Advocate for the Applicants.
                Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
                Mr. Javed Sheikh, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
                -----------------------------------------------
                                2           39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt




                  CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

                  DATED      : 30th MARCH, 2026.


ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned

Counsel for the respective parties.

3. The present Application is preferred by the

Applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

for quashing the First Information Report in connection with

Crime No.81/2023 registered with Police Station Tahsil, District

Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 385,

387, 447, 427, 506(2) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same

bearing R.C.C. No. 971/2026.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who

submitted that the crime is registered on the basis of a report

lodged by the Non-applicant No.2 Asad Ali Hifajat Hussain on

an allegation that his father has obtained the disputed property 3 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt

i.e. shop situated at Mominpura since 1960. After the death of

the original owner he was paying the rent to the wife of the

original owner namely Khurshid Bhagwaghar. Thereafter his

father has purchased the said shop but the present Applicants

have raised the dispute about the ownership of the said shop,

and therefore, the suit was filed bearing No. 736/2000 before

the Civil Court. It is alleged that, the said suit is still pending

before the Civil Court and on that count which the Applicant

No.1 used to threatened him and on 07.12.2022 also he has

visited his shop and abused him in a filthy language and

demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from him and threatened him that if the

amount is not paid he will him by firing bullets. On the basis of

the said report Police have registered the crime against the

present Applicants.

5. During investigation the Investigating Officer has

recorded the relevant statements of witnesses and after

completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against

the present Applicants.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who

submitted that due to the civil dispute between the parties as to 4 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt

the ownership of the said shop the present crime is registered

against the present Applicants. He submitted that, only to

obtain the custody of the said shop in easy way, this complaint is

registered against the present Applicants. He submitted that, as

there is no delivery of property, and therefore, the offence under

Sections 383, 385 of IPC were not made out. He submitted that,

the allegations regarding threatening is not substantiated by any

independent material, and therefore, the Application deserves

to be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for the

Non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed the said contentions and

submitted that, to attract the offence punishable under Section

387 of IPC, the delivery of property is not required. It is further

submitted that, there is a dispute as to the ownership of the said

property and the civil suit is already pending. It is further

submitted that, the delivery of property is not essential for the

purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Sections 384

and 387 of IPC.

8. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the

Non-applicant No.2 that, preparation is also sufficient to attract 5 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt

the offence. In support of his contention he placed reliance on

Balaji Traders Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.,

MANU/SC/0814/2025, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex

Court has considered the scope of Sections 383, 384, 385, 386

and 387 of IPC and also distinguished the said Sections and it is

held that, the delivery of property is not at all a requirement to

attract the offence punishable under Section 387 of IPC. He

submitted that, there are various offences registered against the

present Applicants. Thus, considering the criminal antecedents,

the Application deserves to be rejected.

9. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the

entire investigation papers it reveals that the dispute between

the present Applicants and the Non-applicant No.2 is on account

of shop, which according to the complainant is purchased by

him from the original owner Smt. Khurshid Bhagwagar in 2006

for a consideration of Rs. 70,000/-, whereas the Applicant No.1

has also claimed the ownership and has filed the civil suit

against the Non-applicant No.2. It is alleged that on 07.12.2022,

the present Applicant No.1 alongwith other Applicants visited

the shop of the Non-applicant No.2 and threatened him to face 6 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt

the dire consequences if the said shop is not handed over to

him. During investigation the Investigating Officer has recorded

the statements of the relevant witnesses including the

employees of the Non-applicant No.2 who were present at the

relevant time in the said shop. The statements substantiates the

incident that on 07.12.2022 the present Applicants had been to

the shop and threatened them with a dire consequences. There

is a statement of Mohd. Hussain Rahmatullah Ansari and

Hunaid Taiyyar Abudl Taiyyar contending all these aspects.

10. Now, the question will be whether the ingredients of

the offence are made out. Section 383 of IPC defines Extortion

and the ingredients of the offence are:(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 or sealed which may be converted into a valuable

security; and (iv) such inducement must be done dishonestly.

11. Before a person can be said to put any person in fear

of any injury to that person, it must appear that he has held out 7 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt

some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do

in future. If all that a man does is to promise to do a thing

which he is not legally bound to do and says that if money is not

paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not

amount to an offence of extortion.

12. However, perusal of Section 387 of IPC reveals its

essential ingredients, to be : (a) Accused must have put a person

in fear of death or grievous hurt; (b) Such an act must have

been done in order to commit extortion;

The expression 'in order to' has been defined in the

following ways:

"in order to" : for the purpose of "in order to" with

the purpose of doing 'in order to commit extortion' clearly

reveals that it is in the process of committing the offence of

extortion.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para 14,

which reads as under:

"14. Thus, it can be said in terms of Section 386 (an aggravated form of 384 Indian Penal Code) and 387 Indian Penal Code 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 8 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt

to criminalize 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 Indian Penal Code, the delivery of property is not necessary."

14. By referring the judgment of Radha Ballabh Vs.

State of U.P., MANU/SC/1128/1995, the Hon'ble Apex Court

observes that while dealing with a case wherein ransom was

demanded for releasing the child, observed that it could not be

punishable under Section 386 Indian Penal Code as no ransom

was extorted. Therefore, the conviction was correctly made

under Section 387 Indian Penal Code.

15. Similarly, in Somasundaram Vs. State,

MANU/SC/0467/2020, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court

upheld the conviction under Section 387 Indian Penal Code,

along with other provisions, on the facts, where the deceased

was tied with an iron chain and rope to a cot and threatened to

part with crores of rupees or else execute the document in their

favour. On his failure to do so, the deceased was killed. Thus,

even though there was no delivery of property, the conviction

was upheld by observing that Section 387 Indian Penal Code is 9 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt

a heightened, more serious form of the offence of extortion in

which the victim is put in fear of death or grievous hurt.

16. After going through the penal provisions related to

extortion, it is also imperative to peruse the necessary principles

of quashing, laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court through

various judicial pronouncements which govern the jurisdiction

of the Apex Court as well as this Court under Section 482 Code

of Criminal Procedure.

17. The parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of State of Harayana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal

& Ors., 1992 AIR 604, while considering the Application under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

10 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

18. By applying the above said principles to the facts of

the present case, admittedly, the recitals of the FIR as well as

the statements of various witnesses shows that there was

dispute between the present Applicant No.1 and the

Non-applicant No.2 on account of the said shop. The civil

dispute is also pending between them. The Applicants allegedly

visited the said shop and threatened the Non-applicant No.2 to

face the dire consequences. Thus, the offence punishable under

Section 387 of IPC is primarily made out against the present 11 39.APL.409-2023.JUDGMENT.odt

Applicants. In view of that, the scope of the provision which if

taken into consideration, admittedly, the delivery of the

property is not an essential ingredient in view of the observation