This appeal is at the instance of an accused charged with the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) No 175 of 2022 dated 11.08.2022 registered with the Mirzapur Police Station, District Saharanpur, State of U.P. I shall remain obliged.” Thus it appears on a plain reading of the aforesaid FIR that the victim namely Husna (respondent No.3 herein) had earlier lodged an FIR No 122 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 376D, 323, 120B, 354A and 452 resply of the IPC and under Sections 7 and 8 resply of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against Haji Iqbal @ Bala (father-in-law of the appellant herein), Mehmood, Javed, Alishan, Afjal and Dilshad.
The High Court declined to quash the FIR vide the impugned order dated 17.10.2022.
vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.” In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal. c)
It is respectfully submitted that the alleged First Information Report is absolutely false and frivolous, and on a reading of the said FIR, the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 195-A, 386, 504 and 506 of IPC is clearly not made out against the Petitioner. The entire allegation in the FIR revolves around an earlier No FIR.122/2022 dated 21.06.2022 lodged by the Complainant against Haji Iqbal alias Bala (Petitioner’s father-in-law) and his family members under Sections 376, 323, 354 (A) IPC and Section 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is pertinent to mention that even after the charge sheet has been filed, the petition for quashing of a FIR is well within the powers of a court of law [Please see: ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA & ANOTHER VS. b)
That initially the name of the petitioner was not in the FIR; however, the investigating agency, during the investigation added 147, 148, 149, 195A, 386, 504,506 IPC has been added and the name of the petitioner was added.
d) During investigation, the statement of Complainant was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. In view of the aforementioned factual & legal submissions, it is most respectfully submitted that the present special leave petition of the Petitioners is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost and the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Misc. It appears that further statement of the first informant was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the said statement, the name of the appellant herein surfaced. Rashid Pradhan Mahmudpur said either withdraw the complaint now or give Rs 10 lakh.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/?p=548
That’s why Aslam alias Shubha resident of Shahpur Gada took out a pistol from his pocket and pointed at me and said that you have heard, give us at least 10 lakh rupees. These people threaten me by talking to my family members over the phone to get a decision in the case against Iqbal alias Bala and his family. Sir, the persons whose names I have told you used to visit Iqbal alias Bala’s house, that is why I know them from before. Resident Shahpur Gada police station Mirzapur district Saharanpur and name of the fourth person Atif son of Hameed resident Raipur police station Mirzapur district Saharanpur and the name of the fifth person is Salib alias Salu s/o Dilshad resident Kunja Grant Vikas Nagar Dehradun who is a relative of Haji Iqbal alias Bala, everyone is a respectable person, everyone keeps coming and going in our village Mirzapur.
These people were abusing and threatening Husna wife Irfan resident of village Mirzapur Paul police station Mirzapur district Saharanpur to take a decision in the case written against Haji Iqbal alias Bala and his family members.
Just because the appellant herein happens to be the son-in-law of a very hardened criminal as alleged by name Iqbal @ Bala, he has also been roped in by way of further statement. In our opinion, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 195A of the IPC are disclosed, on plain reading of the FIR and the further statement of the first informant including the statement of the so-called eye witness.
There is nothing to indicate that the accused persons threatened the first informant with intent that the first informant gives false evidence before the Court of law. Procedure for witnesses in case of threatening, etc.—A witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to an offence under section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” The plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that if a witness or any other person receives threats and such threats are administered with an intent to cause that person to give false evidence before the Court, then such witness or person can file a complaint in relation to the offence under Section 195A of the IPC.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/?p=554
We are not going into the question whether the bar of Section 195 of the CrPC would apply to Section 195A of the IPC as we have taken the view that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 195A of the IPC are disclosed in the facts of the present case. —Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” “Extortion” has been defined in Section 383 of the IPC as follows:— Section 383. (c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. 125 of 1931 (Pat):- If the facts had been that the complainant’s thumb had been forcibly seized by one of the petitioners and had been applied to the piece of paper notwithstanding his struggles and protests, then I would agree that there is good ground for saying that the offence committed whatever it may be, was not the offence of extortion because the complainant would not have been induced by the fear of injury but would have simply been the subject of actual physical compulsion.”
The lower Courts only speak of the forcible taking of the victim’ s thumb impression; and as this does not necessarily involve inducing the victim to deliver papers with his thumb impressions (papers which could no doubt be converted into valuable securities), I must hold that the offence of extortion is not established.”
Case Title: SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023 INSC 687)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002344-002344 / 2023
