O M PRAKASH SRIVASTAV Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is an order on charge. Subsequent to this order, on 28-8-2006 the charge has also been framed against the present petitioner along with others under Section 120-B/364-A/387. I. P. C.

(2.) Two points were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first point was that insofar as the charge under Section 364-A. I. P. C. is concerned, the same is not made out on the basis of the allegations contained in the prosecution case. He submits that the ingredients of the section which pertain to kidnapping/abduction for demand of ransom, is not made out. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was extradited from Singapore for certain offences which do not include the present offences. He therefore submitted that he could not be charged or tried for those offences for which he was not extradited. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Council for the State.

(3.) An FIR was registered in this case on 15-4-2003. It was initially registered under Sections 387/120-B, I. P. C. Section 364-A was added later on. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by one Sheetal P. Singh who alleged that one Nitin Shah who was his business rival in the manufacturing and marketing of high security vehicle registration plates tried to persuade the complainant to sell his company to him. After failing in his efforts to do so, the said Nitin Shah is alleged to have engaged the services of the present petitioner who was allegedly a notorious criminal. It is further alleged that about a few months back the complainant's relative Nagesh Kumar had informed him that one Bobby and Jitender alias Jittu of the Babloo gang were inquiring about him in Sultanpur, U. P. Later, about four months prior to the registration of the FIR, it is alleged that Jitender called the complainant on the phone and tried to persuade him to meet the petitioner in Lucknow jail to settle the matter relating to Nitin Shah. It is further alleged that on 11-3-2003, when the complainant was going from Lucknow Airport towards the city, his taxi was intercepted by a red Maruti 800 carrying 3-4 men. One of them introduced himself as Jitender and all these persons forced the complainant to go to the main entrance of Lucknow jail where the present petitioner was allegedly standing inside the main gate. It is further alleged that the present petitioner first spoke to the complainant on the mobile phone and, later, when the complainant approached the gate, he spoke to him face to face. It is then alleged that the petitioner threatened the complainant and told him to pay Rs. 25 lakh, which, according to the petitioner, as the allegation goes, was the sum which his men had incurred as expenses in locating the complainant on the directions of the said Nitin Shah. It is further alleged that the petitioner directed the complainant to participate in a meeting with Nitin Shah in his presence wherein the fate of the business of high security vehicle registration plates in India would be decided by him (the petitioner). This direction was, of course, given under the threat that if he did not participate then the complainant would be killed. Thereafter the complainant is alleged to have left the said Lucknow jail. The next morning, the complainant allegedly caught the first flight for Delhi without participating in any scheduled business activity. It is then alleged that between the 24th and 26th of March, 2003 several SMS messages were received from Jitender stating that the complainant should come to Lucknow immediately as Nitin Shah's men have reached Lucknow. Thereafter the complainant is alleged to have received threatening calls from Jitender as well as the present petitioner. It is further alleged that for the last about two weeks prior to the filing of the complaint, the complainant also received calls of the same nature from one Fazloo from abroad. It is lastly alleged that on 14-4-2003, one day prior to the registration of the FIR the said Fazloo again called and threatened the complainant that he would meet with dire consequences if he did not pay an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs by 15-4-2003. Three SMS messages from Jitender were also received by the complainant as follow-up threats. It is also mentioned in the complaint that other threats at the behest of the said Nitin Shah were also meted out to friends and associates of the present complainant by the petitioner and his associates. It is in these circumstances that the complaint was filed and the said FIR was registered on 15-4-2003.