'Complete Misuse Of Police Powers In Filing FIR': Rajasthan High Court Nixes Extortion Case By One Minor Girl Against Another
While quashing an FIR registered on the complaint of a 17-year-old girl alleging extortion by a 15-year-old girl, Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court questioned its registration without verification of basic facts, adding that the FIR indicated a complete abuse of police powers.
A single-judge bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order observed:
“It is rather unfathomable as to how at the first instance, FIR came to be registered without even verifying the preliminary basic facts. Both the complainant and the petitioner accused being juvenile, the FIR in question is a complete abuse and misuse of police powers and is accordingly not sustainable.”
The FIR was registered under Section 386 IPC–alleging extortion of money by putting a fear of death or grievous hurt which is punishable with a maximum sentence of up to 10 years.
The complainant alleged that the petitioner invited her at home under the pretence of selling a "cosmetic cream". However, she claimed, that instead of being provided with the cream, the complainant was taken to a café where another person joined them and both the petitioner and the other person coerced the complainant to accept a cigarette.
While the complainant was holding the cigarette, the petitioner and the other individual took a picture of the former and started blackmailing her for money which she initially provided. However, when the complainant refused their further demands, she was reportedly assaulted and threatened leading her to file the complaint culminating in the extortion FIR.
On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the real dispute between the parties was over an outstanding payment of Rs. 3000 for a cosmetic cream that was purchased by the complainant from the petitioner, which has not been settled till date. He claimed that the FIR was based on false and fabricated statements.
Meanwhile, the State argued that no interference was warranted by the court "as law will take its own course once the FIR was registered". In case no offence is found to have been committed by the petitioner, a negative report will be filed in her favour.
The high court observed that it appeared that IPC Section 386 had been wrongly invoked since the essential ingredient of the offence, was to put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt; however, there was no whisper of any such threat by the complainant.
"At best, if at all, the purported offence, though, of course, on the basis of false allegations, as it appears, would fall under Section 385 of IPC," the high court said. Section 385 IPC pertains to putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. The punishment under this section is imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine or both.
The high court further held even in the context of IPC Section 385, it was impossible to register the FIR since both the parties involved were minors.
"In the context of Section 385 of IPC, conceded factual position is that not only the complainant is a minor girl aged 17 years, but even the accused i.e. the petitioner herein, is stated to be only 15 years," it said.
Justice Monga further referred to Rule 8(1) of the Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules 2016 and said that the provision mandates that in cases involving children, an FIR could only be registered if the alleged offence was classified as "heinous", having a punishment of 7 years or more. For petty offences, no FIR could be registered unless the offence was alleged to be committed in conjunction with adults, the court added.
It further observed that even in cases, when a child is apprehended for a crime punishable by a sentence of less than seven years, only a daily diary (DD) entry is to be made; if required the child can then be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).
The high court underscored that police officials are required to prepare and submit a "social background" report on the child, a report detailing the circumstances of the alleged offence, information on the recovery of any stolen property, and proof of the child's age, along with other relevant documents.
Allowing the petition, the high court quashed the FIR.
Case Title: X v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 293