Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 5776 of 2022
Between:-
NEERAJ SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI RAMDEEN
SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
NEWS REPORTER R/O NEAR SANTUSHTI JAL,
WARD, NO. 15, BAIL BAZAR,TEHSIL CHOURAI,
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRATEEK DUBEY, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE POLICE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATION OFFICER IN CHARGE POLICE STATION
CHOURAI TEHSIL CHOURAI DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. SHASHI VISHWAKARMA PRESENT STATION
OFFICER INCHARGE POLICE STATION CHOURAI
TEHSIL CHOURAI DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUDHIR SINGH THAKUR @ NARAYAN THAKUR
S/O SHRI SHYAM THAKUR , AGED ABOUT 29
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE
SAMASWADA THANA CHOURAI DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHYAM THAKUR S/O LATE SHRI VIKRAM
THAKUR OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE
SAMASWADA THANA CHOURAI DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD PANDEY, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
ORDER
SAN
Heard on the question of admission.
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.14 10:31:06 IST
The present petition has been filed challenging the FIR dated 31.10.2021
(Annexure P/1) whereby, the offences has been registered in Crime No.691/2021
for the offences under Section 384 of the IPC at Police Station-Chourai, District
Chhindwara (M.P.).
It is submitted that the petitioner is a member of Electronic and Print Media
and was associated with "Sudarshan News Channel". He was working as a news
reporter. He believes in quality and pure news circulation to general public. The
petitioner has published certain news against the respondent no.4 with respect to
her performance of her duties and the same was found to be correct, when the
matter was investigated by the District Education Officer. Being annoyed, the
respondent no.4 has made a complaint against the petitioner for wreaking her
vengeance. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has
threatened the respondent no.4 that he will highlight the news of illegal demand of
fees from the students during pandemic of Covid-19 and under such threat has
done extortion by making demand of Rs.25,000/-. It is argued that no offence
under Section 384 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner even if the
complaint is taken in toto. The necessary ingredient of extortion is delivery of
property or valuable security. Nothing has been delivered or transferred in
pursuance to the allegation made against the petitioner. No amount has been
received by the petitioner; therefore, there is no delivery of the property then no
offence of extortion is made out against the petitioner. He has further placed
reliance upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pepsi Foods Ltd and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others
reported in 1998 (5) SCC 749 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering
the earlier judgement of State of Haryana Vs. Bhanjan Lal reported in 1992
Suppl. SCC 335 has held that if the court finds that no offence is made out from
bare reading of the complaint or the FIR then the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised for quashment of the criminal proceedings.
No such criminal proceedings are permitted to continue where no offence is
prima facie is made out. He has further placed reliance upon the judgement passed
Signature Not Verified
SAN by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.14 10:31:06 IST
Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2014 (15) SCC 357
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically considered the provisions of
Section 384 of the IPC and held that unless "the 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 of the IPC could not have been registered
by the police."
The aforesaid judgment was further followed by the High Court of
Chhattisgarh, in the case of (WPCR No.133/2017) in the case of Shatrughan
Singh Sahu Vs. State of Chhatisgarh and Others; wherein, the similar stand
has been taken by the High Court of Chhatisgarh. Placing reliance upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isaac Isanga
Musumba (supra). It is submitted that once no property is being delivered then
no case under Section 384 of the IPC is made out. FIR should be quashed and
permitting the criminal proceedings to continue will clearly abuse of law.
He has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC Online 315 and has argued
that the provisions Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can been exercised sparing and in
rare cases.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends and has argued that
despite of the offence being registered against the petitioner on 31.10.2021 for
offence under Section 384 of the IPC, he has neither surrendered nor has applied
for anticipatory bail. He is absconding and not co-operating in the investigation. He
has neither applied for grant of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the
investigation is pending in the matter. It is argued that in pending investigation, the
FIR should not quashed nor any interim relief or any coercive action be granted
against the petitioner. If the petitioner is having a strong case, he would very well
applied for anticipatory bail. Directly filing a writ petition before this court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashment of an FIR is not
permissible. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Signature Not Verified
Supreme Court in the case of Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd Eshwar reported
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
in (2018) 11 SCC 205 and the State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani
Date: 2022.03.14 10:31:06 IST
and Ors reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779 and has argued that Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid cases have categorically held that no pending investigation or
proceedings should be entertained and no interim relief should be extended in the
matter. It is argued that the petitioner may apply for grant of anticipatory bail and
thereafter, come for quashment of the FIR.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On perusal of the record, it is seen that it is admitted fact the FIR against the
petitioner has been registered at Crime No.691/2021, Police Station Chourai,
District Chhindwara for offence under Sections 384 of the IPC and the allegation
as per the prosecution story is that he has tried to extort Rs.25,000/- and has given
threatening to the complainant that he will publish her news in the print media. He is
a generalist by profession and working in "Sudarshan News Channel".
It is submitted that complaint was immediately got registered against the
petitioner. He has never applied for grant of anticipatory bail in the matter. The law
with respect to the quashment of the proceedings is apparently clear as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Telangana v.
Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Ors reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779 has held as
under:-
"In the instant case, the High Court has not referred to
allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the
investigation. It has noted and correctly that the investigation is
in progress and it is not appropriate to stay the investigation of
the case. It has disposed of the application under Section 482
CrPC and while doing that it has directed that the investigating
agency shall not arrest the accused persons. This direction
Âœamounts to an order under Section 438 CrPC, albeit without
satisfaction of the conditions of the said provision. This is legally
unacceptable."
It is not disputed that the petitioner has never applied for grant of
Signature Not Verified
SAN anticipatory bail at any point of time. He he directly preferred this petition under
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.14 10:31:06 IST
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the FIR. Investigation is
pending in the matter. The petitioner has not co-operated with the police
authorities. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
On perusal of the FIR, there are specific allegation made against the
petitioner. The aforesaid allegations are yet to be established by leading cogent
evidence before the learned trial court. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid cases, Tilly Gifford (supra) and the State of Telangana
(supra), this court is not willing to entertain this writ petition for quashment of the
FIR directly. The petitioner may approach this court for grant of anticipatory bail if
he so desires and then co-operate in the investigation and then come forward to get
the FIR quashed.
No case for interference is made out. Writ petition is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.14 10:31:06 IST
