LANKA HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Accused Nos.l to 8 in Crime No.149 of 2002 of P.S. Chilakaluripet under Section 384 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (I.P.C). The de facto complainant, Rangamma, in her complaint given through the retired I.P.S Officer alleged as under: ...When I was preparing to take away the tractor from the Police Station to my house after settling the problem with the RTO, was stopped on the road at Adda road by a group of people. Among them I recognized Lanka Hanumantha Rao, Thota Rama Krishna, Thota Seshagiri, Byra Nagamma, Polasu Nagababu, Thota Lakshmaiah, Lanka Sitamma and Lanka Anjaneyulu. There were on lookers also. Suddenly Thota Lakshmaiah came towards me and asked me to put my thumb impression on one blank paper and on two printed forms. I said I would not sign because I did not owe any money to any body. Then he told me that my husband had borrowed Rs.2,000/- from Lanka Hanumantha Rao. He also told me that he would get me Rs. 1,000/- as concession and asked me again to put my thumb impression. All the persons whose names are given above forced me to put my thumb impression on one blank paper and two blank promissory note forms. Thota Seshagiri give me the three papers. Lanka Hanumantha Rao was along with him at that time. Thota Seshagiri told me again to put my thumb impressions on two blank promissory notes and a blank paper. After some days Thota Lakshmaiah returned to me the blank paper and one blank promissory note form on which had put my thumb impression. These are enclosed. Lakshmaiah told me that one paper was taken by Hanumantha Rao. I understand that the blank promissory note form on which my thumb impression was obtained by force has been utilized by Hanumantha Rao to file a civil case against me in the Court. I request you to register a case and take necessary legal action against the accused.

(2.) On the complaint, the police registered the case of extortion and took up investigation. The petitioners immediately approached this Court and obtained interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.149 of 2002. In this case filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), for quashing the Crime, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. B.V. Krishna Rao, submits that the de facto complainant executed a promissory note based on which the first petitioner filed a suit being O,S. No.33 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet on 12-2-2002 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on the basis of the promissory note executed by the de facto complainant, that the first petitioner also obtained the order of attachment before judgment attaching the Tractor bearing No. AEK 4732 of the de facto complainant and as a counter blast concocted the crime and gave a complaint on 16-6-2002 and that even the complaint filed by her does not disclose the commission of offence under Section 384 of I.P.C.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent (de facto complainant), Sri. B. Nalin Kumar, submits that the complaint given by the fourth respondent contains an allegation that when she was taking her Tractor from the Police Station by settling the problem with the Regional Transport Officer, the petitioners accosted her and forced her to put her thumb impression on blank papers and two promissory notes, based on which the suit was filed and therefore, the allegations do contain ingredients of extortion as defined in Section 383 of I.P.C. he relies on Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 = 1999 (1) ALD (Crl.) 760 (SC) and S.M. Datta v. Shah of Gujarat, 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 553 (SC), in support of the contention that at the stage of complaint and investigation, it is not necessary for the complainant to use the same language used in the provision of I.P.C or any other provision and it is to be sufficient to give broad aspects of the Crime, which is his submission that even if the ingredients of offence to the perfection are absent with the complaint, at the stage if investigation, the complaint cannot be quashed.