- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Karnataka High Court Quashes...
Karnataka High Court Quashes Extortion Complaint Against Alleged RSS Activist, Says 'Putting Person In Fear Of Injury' Essential U/S 385 IPC
Mustafa Plumber
23 Feb 2023 6:55 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an extortion complaint against a man who was alleged of threatening the complainant, stating that he is a RTI/RSS activist and would stall inauguration of a building if he is not paid money.A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar noted there was no allegation against the petitioner that he put any person in fear of injury to extort money....
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an extortion complaint against a man who was alleged of threatening the complainant, stating that he is a RTI/RSS activist and would stall inauguration of a building if he is not paid money.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar noted there was no allegation against the petitioner that he put any person in fear of injury to extort money. It observed,
"To constitute an offence punishable under Section 385 of IPC, a person must put any other person in fear of any injury. In the instant case, there is no material placed along with the charge sheet that, the petitioner has put the defacto complainant in fear of any injury in order to commit extortion."
It was alleged by the complaint that when he was preparing for the inauguration of the buildings, at that point of time, the petitioner-accused came to the spot and stated that he is an RTI and RSS activists and if a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is not paid, he will see to that the Chief Minister and other dignitaries will not attend the inauguration.
Advocate G R Mohan appearing for the petitioner argued that allegations made in the FIR, even accepted on the face of it, does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC, since there is no allegation that the defacto complainant parted with the money or that the petitioner-accused induced the defacto complainant and put him in fear to deliver the money.
The plea was opposed by the complainant saying that parting of money is not an essential requirement to constitute an offence under Section 384 of IPC.
The bench on going through the records said “In the instant case, there is no allegation that the accused has put the defacto complainant in fear of injury intentionally, and thereby induced the defacto complainant to deliver the money to which he has allegedly demanded. In the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of an offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is impermissible.”
Thus it held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of law.
Case Title: N Hanumegowda And State of Karnataka
Case No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Date of Order: 14-02-2023
Appearance: Advocate G R Mohan for petitioner.
HCGP Vinayaka V S FOR R1
Advocate D. Prabhakar FOR R-2.
