Inordinate Delay In Lodging "Extortion" Complaint Gives Rise To Doubts As To Its Veracity: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that unexplained delay in registering a complaint of extortion under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, gives rise to embellishment to a particular complaint.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a petition filed by one Imran Siddique and quashed two FIR registered against him under Sections 384, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

The bench said,

"As the complaints so registered after 9 months are full of embellishments that too vague embellishment. In the teeth of the aforesaid complaints, if further investigation or proceedings are permitted to continue, it would degenerate into harassment and result in abuse of the process of law."

A complaint was registered on 01-05-2022 alleging that the petitioners have threatened the complainant and have extracted money and are demanding Rs.2 lakhs again. Based upon this, the petitioners were arrested and taken to custody. After the petitioners obtained bail another complaint was registered on 05-05-2022 with the same allegation by a different complainant.

Senior Advocate A.S.Ponnanna submitted that a bare perusal of the complaints would clearly indicate that they are planted ones against the petitioners as the allegations in the complaints are that the petitioners had threatened and sought to extract money about 8 months back before registration of complaints. If it were to be an extortion of money, it ought to have been reported immediately and delay in filing the complaints is fatal to the investigation even.

Special Public Prosecutor V.S.Hegde submitted that once a cognizable offence is reported with whatever delay, it would be a matter of investigation and the petitioners cannot call registration of FIRs in question on their very registration, as investigation has not progressed any further. The police may investigate and even file a 'B' report if there is no truth in the allegation, he said.

Findings:

The bench perused the two complaints filed against the petitioners and said,

"What merits consideration is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the complainants are ghost complainants as the allegation in the complaints is that extortion has taken place about 9 months before registration of the complaints. There is no explanation except saying that due to fear there is delay in registration of complaints."

It added,

"If extraction had taken place on 13-09-2021, a complaint could not have been registered on 05-05-5022. Similar goes with the earlier complaint and if complaints are read in juxtaposition they are verbatim similar. In fact, a few paragraphs are copied and pasted between the complaints registered on 01-05-2022 and 05-05-2022. Therefore, the very registration of crime or the happening of the incident becomes doubtful, as delay in registering the complaints gives rise to embellishment to a particular complaint."

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the bench said, "The perusal of the complaints would demonstrate two factors i.e., improbability and mala fide intention. Therefore, as observed by the Apex Court, in such cases, further proceedings should not be permitted to continue."

Case Title: IMRAN SIDDIQUI v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.10023 OF 2022 C/W WRIT PETITION No.10029 OF 2022.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 300

Date of Order: 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

Appearance: Senior Advocate A.S.PONNANNA, A/W Advocate PRAVEEN KAMATH M.R for petitioner; Special Public Prosecutor V.S.HEGDE, A/W HCGP K.P.YASHODHA, FOR R1; Advocate RUDRAPPA P for R2

Click Here To Read/Download Order