Ravi Papnai vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 2523 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

     Criminal Misc. Appl. (C482) No. 1739 of2023

Ravi Papnai                          ...................Applicant


                              vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Anr.            ...............Respondents

Present:
     Mr. P.C. Petshali, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
     Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, the learned A.G.A. for the
     State.
     Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the
     complainant.


Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Heard.

2. In this C482 petition, the challenge given by the

present applicant is to the proceedings of Criminal Case

No. 1927 of 2021, State vs. Ravi Papnai, being the

proceedings drawn for against the present applicant for

the offences under Sections 504, 506, 386,501, 509 and

354-D of IPC. As a consequence of the registration of

aforesaid criminal case, the summoning order has been

issued against the present applicant, being the

summoning order dated 20.02.2021.

3. The C482 application is listed along with the

compounding application, wherein the complainant has

stated in her affidavit filed in support thereto, that she

wants to mitigate the offence for which trial is pending

consideration, owing to the fact that, subsequently she

is married to another male. Out of the said matrimony

she has got a child and, hence, she wants to dilute all

the offences, in order to have a peaceful married life

which she is having with another male.

4. The C482 application is being vehemently opposed

by the learned Government Advocate on the ground,

that two of the offences, i.e., offence under Section 386

and Section 354-D of IPC are not compoundable, as

such the compounding application may not be

considered by this Court, in exercising its inherent

powers under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, but, in order to meet out the objection as

raised by the Government counsel, this Court is of the

view, that so far as the allegation pertaining to the

offence under Section 386 of IPC is concerned, the

provisions contained under Section 386 IPC, if it is taken

into consideration which deals with an extortion. For

extortion the basic element which is required therein

which could be derived from the definition of extortion

as given under Section 383 IPC, which specifically uses

the word that "the person so put in fear to deliver to

any person" meaning thereby, that the primary

ingredients required for the purposes of commission of

the offence under Section 386 IPC for extortion there

has had to be an actual delivery of the amount to the

other person to make out an offence under Section 383

IPC to be read with Section 386 IPC.

5. The aforesaid principle as to under what

circumstances the offence under Section 386 IPC could

be made out, was dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the judgment reported in 2023 SCC Online 94,

Salib @ Shalu Salim vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 22 of the said

judgment has observed, that for the purposes of

commission of an offence under Section 386 IPC, its

necessary ingredients for the offence of 'extortion' is

that victim must be induced to deliver any person any

property or valuable security. Thus, the Court has

observed that ultimately in the absence of there being

an actual delivery, the offence under section 386 IPC,

could not be made out, because for extortion under

Section 386 IPC, there has had to be an actual delivery

of the valuable security. Relevant paragraphs 22 and 25

are extracted hereunder:-

"22. So from the aforesaid, it is clear that one of the necessary ingredients of the offence f 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.

25. Thus, it is relevant to not that nowhere the first information has stated that out of fear, she paid Rs. 10 lakh to the accused person. To put it in other words, there is nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery of possession of property (money) by the person put in fear. In the absence of anything to even remotely suggest that the first information parted with a particular amount after being put to fear of any injury, no offence under Section 386 of the IPC can be said to have been made out."

6. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid principle,

that no offence under Section 386 IPC could be said to

be made out as against the present applicant, coupled

with the fact that Hon'ble Bench of Chattisgarh High

Court in the matters of Shatrugan Singh Sahu vs. State

of Chattisgarh, as reported in (2022) 1 CGLJ 132, was

considering almost the similar issue as to under what

circumstances the offence under Section 386 IPC, could

be said to be made out as against an accused person,

and the Court has dealt with the said aspect in para 17

of the said judgment, wherein by giving its logic in

paragraph 16, ultimately has drawn its conclusion in

para 17 that the offence of extortion would only be

made out when it is proved that the amount was

delivered out of fear or an injury. These two elements

are not being satisfied in the instant case, with the

allegations leveled in the FIR or in the charge sheet

which was ultimately submitted by the Investigating

Officer. Relevant paragraph 17 is extracted hereunder:

"17. Thus, what is necessary for constituting an offence of 'extortion' is that the prosecution must prove that on account of being put in fear of injury, the victim was voluntarily delivered any particular property to the man putting him into fear. If there was no delivery of property, then the most important ingredient for constituting the offence of 'extortion' would not be available. Further, if a person voluntarily delivers any property without there being any fear of injury, an offence of 'extortion' cannot be said to have been committed."

7. So far as the other non-compoundable offence

under Section 354-D IPC is concerned, though, the act

of 'stalking' was said to be made out as against the

present applicant as stated by the complainant who is

present in person, but, there has had to be a

harmonious construction for the purposes of dealing with

a litigation in a changed circumstances where the

complainant submits that owing to the fact, that she is

now married and, she is having a child, no fruitful

purpose will be served to carry out the present

proceedings and even if remotedly an offence under

Section 354-D IPC, is said to have been made out, as

stated by the complainant who is present in person, this

Court is of the view that the same could be compounded

by this Court while exercising of the inherent powers

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., because the Court's

exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are not

circumscribed and limited to the offence which stands

covered under Section 320 CrPC. In that eventuality, the

offences for which the summoning order has been issued

as against present applicant , though some of them are

not compoundable, but, looking to the overall facts and

circumstances of the case, particularly the interest of the

complainant, when she is married and having a child,

the proceedings of C482 application is dropped, and

consequent thereto, the proceedings of the Criminal

Case No. 1927 of 2021, State vs. Ravi Papnai, pending

consideration before the Court of Additional C.J.M.

Haldwani, Nainital would hereby stand quashed.

8. Apart from the imposition of the aforesaid penalty,

the applicant is further directed as under:-

"i. That the applicant would be planting 5 trees in an area to be identified by the Horticulture Department of his District to which he belongs, at his own cost.

ii. The plantation of the trees would be made in the respective areas, from which he belongs, under the supervision of the Horticulture Department.

iii. It is only upon the submission of the certificate of the planting of the 5 trees to be issued by the competent authority of the Horticulture Department, which has to be submitted before the competent court ceased with the criminal proceedings, its then only the proceedings would be dropped, in compliance of the today's order passed in the present c482 applications.

iv. If the aforesaid compliance is not made within a period of one month from today, it will automatically result into the revival of the aforesaid criminal proceedings.

v. If at any stage, any Officer of the Horticulture Department is found to have issued a fraudulent certificate, he would be criminally dealt with in accordance with law."

9. Owing to above, the matter is compounded and the

C482 application would stand disposed of accordingly.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 28.08.2023 Parul