Prabhu Shankar vs State of Karnataka and others.
Criminal Petition 2389 of 2020 decided on 8 September 2021
Justice H.P. Sandesh
Judgment in PDF at the end.
Allegations against the accused/petitioner
2. A case is registered against this petitioner, based on the statement dated 07.05.2020 of one Adil Azeez, who is respondent No.3 herein. In the statement, he has stated that he is the distributor of ITC Company Cigarettes. Due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the Government had declared lockdown in the month of March and April, 2020. He was having 100 employees, who used to supply cigarettes in the cycle and grocery items to different shops and due to lockdown, the employees were facing difficulties. Hence, in April, 2020 he contacted one Sri Babu Rajendra Prasad explaining the difficulties faced by his employees. The said Babu Rajendra Prasad told him to introduce the petitioner herein. After some time, he called and informed him to go along with one Bhushan to the office of this petitioner and he had already spoken to him. Hence, himself and said Bhushan went and met the petitioner and this petitioner introduced the other Inspector Ajay. When he was talking to this petitioner, the said Bhushan went away from the room. He spoke to him for 15 minutes in the presence of said Ajay and he told him to contact the said Inspector and gave the number of the Inspector. It is his statement that, in between 22.04.2020 to 28.04.2020, he has sent whatsapp message to the said Inspector regarding unethical practice of six to seven distributors in selling the cigarette and their location and photos.
3. That on 20.04.2020, the said Babu Rajendra Prasad told him that he had discussed with this petitioner and will you make settlement and hence, he told him that he will enquire with the other distributors. Thereafter, he has discussed with the other distributors also. He told the other distributors that said Babu Rajendra Prasad would deal with this petitioner for unlawful circulation of cigarettes. The said Babu Rajendra Prasad demanded Rs.15 lakhs from each of the distributors but, on negotiation, it was agreed for Rs.14 lakhs which becomes to Rs.70 lakhs. The said Babu Rajendra Prasad told him to make payment of first installment before 30th April and second installment in the first week of May. Accordingly, he made the payment of Rs.32.5 lakhs and Rs.30 lakhs to said Babu Rajendra Prasad to make payment to this petitioner. The said Babu Rajendra Prasad told him that in two installments, Rs.62.5 lakhs was paid to this petitioner and an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was paid to the concerned jurisdictional police.
4. That on 07.05.2020, the said Babu Rajendra Prasad called him to come near to his house and at that time, this petitioner and Inspectors Ajay and Niranjan Kumar were also there. Thereafter, ITC company Manager Govindaraj also arrived to his house. The said Babu Rajendra Prasad instructed him and Govindaraj to accompany the police officers to go to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II and accordingly, all of them went to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II office and he enquired them separately. They had shown red and black mixed rexin bag and he identified the money and the said amount was given to Bhushan earlier and he identifies and says that said bag was given to Bhushan. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II told him that this petitioner handed over the money telling that he had collected Rs.25 lakhs. Hence, case has been registered against this petitioner and also other accused.
6. In this petition, it is contended that a strange story was concocted, claiming that certain moneys had been paid by the said Adil Azeez to this petitioner and two other Inspectors of Police in the CCB. In this background, it is emerged that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II, who is one of the heads of the second respondent, was issued with an order on 06.05.2020 by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) to enquire into certain allegations said to have been carried in some daily newspaper. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II in the course of his enquiry, records the statement of the third respondent, who is an accused in the crime registered in K.R.Puram Police Station. On the basis of the statement, the second respondent writes a letter to the Police Inspector, Cottonpet Police Station dated 12.05.2020 annexing the statement of third respondent, with a request to take appropriate legal action. Based on the same, present Crime No.64/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of IPC has been registered.
7. It is contended that the police have registered the case in Crime No.167/2020 and the same was under investigation. Based on the statement of the third respondent, FIR has been registered. The accused, who was subjected to investigation, has given a statement as a counter blast to the investigation process and to get away from the arm of law by implicating the police officers, who are investigating the case. If this were to be permitted, then every accused would make allegations against the Investigating Officer and criminal process will have to be set into motion against all of them. The investigation having commenced on 30.04.2020 was in progress and there was no need for the third respondent or any other Superior Officer to interfere in the investigation. The entire mode adopted is only to deviate from the original tract of investigation by taking away the investigation from the concerned officers, with the sole intention of maliciously implicating the petitioner.
8. The other contention of the petitioner is that case has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC and in order to constitute an office of extortion under Section 384 of IPC, the necessary ingredients would be to intentionally put any person in fear of any enquiry to that person or to any other and dishonestly induce the person so put in fear to deliver any property. In the absence of these fundamental and necessary ingredients, the offence under Section 384 of IPC cannot be made out. In the present case, a plain reading of the statement do not indicate any ingredients of the offence under Section 384 of IPC. Hence, the very registration of the case for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC is bad in law.
17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 vehemently contends that the Police have rightly registered the case against the petitioner, who indulged in extracting the money from him. The respondent No.3 has also filed the statement of objections and along with the statement of objections, certain documents are also enclosed
Discussion and findings.
23. Having considered the statement of respondent No.3, it is very clear that he had collected money from other distributors and paid the same to said Babu Rajendra Prasad, Bhushan and also to the local police station which is reflected in para No.4 of the statement. It is not his case that he paid the money to this petitioner and it is also important to note that, nowhere in his statement, he has stated that this petitioner had put him in fear to depart money, except stating that he went along with Bhushan and spoken to him and no any statement that this petitioner threatened him or put him in fear. The statement also does not disclose that money has been directly handed over to this petitioner. But, only he comes to know through the Deputy Commissioner that amount was recovered from the petitioner herein. It is also important to note that only name of this petitioner has been referred and there is no demand and acceptance by this petitioner and the demand is made by Babu Rajendra Prasad. No doubt, the respondent No.3 has placed some of the documents along with the statement of objections at Exs.R1 to R14 and contends that money has been handed over to the petitioner, none of the documents reflect that this petitioner had received the money. However, the document at Annexure-R3 discloses that an amount of Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs was produced at the instance of one Sri Anjan Kumar, Police Inspector, CCB on 30.05.2020 in the presence of panchas and the same is subjected to P.F.No.49/2020 and not from the petitioner herein.
24. Though in the document at Annexure-R5 it is mentioned that this petitioner has handed over the money to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs on 09.05.2020 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II, the said document states otherwise that the amount has been seized in the presence of panch witness and not from the petitioner herein and only seizure mahazar was drawn in the presence of panchas and so also in the document at Annexure-R7, it is stated that an amount of Rs.25 lakhs was produced by this petitioner and the same was seized in the presence of panch witness and none of the documents contains the signature of the petitioner herein. Further, there is no material on record to show that recovery has been made at the instance of this petitioner. However, it is the case of the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that an amount of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.32.5 lakhs was handed over on two different dates. But recoveries are made on different dates.
31. In the case on hand, I have already pointed out that the allegations made in the statement of respondent No.3 does not constitute the offence under Section 384 of IPC and not comes within the definition of Section 383 of IPC since, no such fear as enumerated under Section 383 of IPC is created in the mind of respondent No.3 and nowhere in his statement, he has stated that this petitioner has put him in fear and collected money but, only reference was made to his name that he met him. It is also not his case that he demanded and accepted the money or put him under any threat. Hence, the question of invoking offence under Section 384 of IPC for extortion does not arise. Hence, it is clear that criminal proceedings are manifest with malafides and the entire proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motives for wrecking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to the personal and private grudge.
33. I have already pointed out that the respondent No.3 states that he came to know through the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II that money has been recovered by the petitioner and this petitioner is not a witness to the recovery of the said amount. Hence, it is clear that, as contended, a case has been registered at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II, since a direction was given to the Inspector to take legal action, based on the statement of respondent No.3. As already pointed out, the statement of respondent No.3 does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence and none of the ingredients of offence under Section 384 of IPC. No doubt, the offence under Section 384 of IPC is a cognizable and non- bailable offence, but the statement does not disclose commission of cognizable offence. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent will not come to the aid of third respondent.
34. Having considered the material on record, registration of FIR is nothing but a malicious prosecution against this petitioner with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. It is nothing but an infight between the officers of the department and due to vengeance, the criminal prosecution is instituted which is a serious matter.
37. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, it is very clear that the Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. wherein the complaint does not disclose committing of any cognizable offence and the same is filed with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance against the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the case on hand, not only one case has been registered against this petitioner, in all, six cases have been registered invoking other penal provisions at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II. When criminal proceedings are manifest with malafides and has been initiated maliciously with an ulterior motives for wrecking vengeance with a view to spite him due to the personal and private grudge, it is the duty cast upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process which leads to miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is appropriate to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also pertinent to note that law cannot be set in motion as a matter of course and the Court has to carefully scrutinize the material on record.
38.I have already pointed out that the none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 383 of IPC has been made out in the statement of respondent No.3 and therefore, the question of proceeding against the petitioner for the offence under Section 384 of IPC is nothing but an abuse of process which leads to miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is appropriate to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
39. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed. The impugned FIR registered against the petitioner herein in Crime No.64/2020 dated 12.05.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of IPC on the file of 31st Additional CMM Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City is hereby quashed.
Daksha Legal 