SAHINA BANO Vs. WASIM AKHTER WARSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to quash the order dtd. 18/12/2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Sambalpur, in I.C.C. Case No. 256 of 2021, whereby the learned court took cognizance of the offences alleged against the Petitioners pursuant to a complaint filed by the Opposite Party under Ss. 384/506/34 of the IPC.

(2.) The background facts of the case are that the Petitioners and the Opposite Party are related to each other. Petitioner No.1, a widow, is the biological sister of the Opposite Party, while Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are her sons. As the Petitioners had no residence of their own, they were permitted to occupy a house belonging to the Opposite Party on rent in the year 2013-14. At that time, the Opposite Party was residing abroad in the United Kingdom.

(3.) Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, during the course of hearing, strenuously argued that none of the ingredients of the offences under Ss. 384/506/34 of the IPC are satisfied from the averments made in the complaint or from the statements of witnesses recorded under Sec. 202 of the CrPC. He further submitted that the entire allegation rests upon the admitted fact that the Petitioners were occupying the house of the Opposite Party with his consent and subsequently vacated the same. The alleged payment of money by the Opposite Party under duress is, according to the Petitioners, entirely false and misconceived. It is inconceivable that the Opposite Party, being a highly educated and literate person, would characterise such payment as extortion, particularly when, in his own complaint, he has stated that he extended financial support to Petitioner No.1 keeping in view her financial condition and their close familial relationship.