KAMAL KANT KUMHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred by the accusedpetitioner being aggrieved by the registration of an FIR No.311/2017 registered at the police Station Nai Mandi, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Sec. 384 of the IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2-complainant filed an FIR alleging that she is a Sarpanch and present petitioner has demanded Rs.3.00 lacs and if not paid to him then he would proceed to institute false cases and proceedings against her. After registration of FIR, investigation was carried out and police has drawn a charge sheet with finding that offence under Sec. 384 IPC is made out against the petitioner. An additional affidavit on behalf of the then Investigating officer Late Shri Anwar Khan was filed by Shri Vikram Chouhan.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submitted that from bare perusal of FIR no prima facie case of extortion is made out against the petitioner and the petitioner, a RTI activist, was unnecessarily been implicated in the instant matter under the political pressure by the complainant, who is a Sarpanch. He would further submitted that extortion is defined under Sec. 383 of the IPC wherein unless any valuable property is delivered or anything is signed or converted into a valuable security, the process of extortion is not completed. He would submitted that as per allegations in FIR only threat was given to respondent No.2 but no demand or delivery of valuable security was effected by victim thus, it is nothing but an abuse of process of law. To support his contention learned counsel has relied upon the pronouncement of Hon'ble Court in the case of Vena Ram Vs. State of Raj. 2002 (2) WLN 628 and upon the judgment delivered by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in case of Shatrughan Singh Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, 2021 0 Supreme (Chh) 243.