Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19665 of 2011 (2) dt.16-03-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.19665 of 2011 ====================================================== Vivekanand Jha @ Bivekanand Jha son of late Sachidanand Jha, resident of village-Panchgachhiya, P.s.-Bihara, Distt.-Saharsa .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha For the Opposite Party : Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 16-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.5.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Saharsa in G.R. Case No. 1647 of 2010 whereby the court below has refused to discharge the petitioner. According to the F.I.R. one Kulanand Pandit (Assistant Engineer-cum-Sector Officer, Sector-13, Mahishi Assembly Constituency) has made an allegation against the petitioner being B.L.O. who was assigned the duty distribution of Identity Card for that he used to take money from the voters (Booth No. 123) while distributing them Identity Card, when they refused to part with the money he used to return without distribution of the same. When the informant complained the matter to the higher authorities, the petitioner called him through Mobile No. 9430869381 and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19665 of 2011 (2) dt.16-03-2012 threatened the former that a complaint regarding demand of money would be made against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acts alleged in F.I.R. do not constitute an offence under [STATUTE] and should be discharged. In support of submission, petitioner has relied on judgment reported in 2007 Cr. L.J. 1440, Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Kr. Singh Vs. State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for constituting offence under [STATUTE] the primary ingredients are as follows:- “Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion”. On perusal of the FIR it appears that voter were deprived of Identity Card in the event of refusal of payment. The voter identity card is a very valuable document for a citizen of this country that can be used for different purposes including for casting the vote. According to the FIR it appears that petitioner used to give the identity card only after receipt of the money and those Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19665 of 2011 (2) dt.16-03-2012 persons do not part with money petitioner refused to give Identity Card. In my opinion, even the judgment that has been relied upon does not apply to this case, the court below has rightly refused to discharge the petitioner as in view of the this Court there are materials which constitute offence alleged are sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 384

Statute Text:
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. Extortion. Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.