IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28458 of 2008 GOPAL PRASAD SINGH, SON OF MAHENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAMPAPUR, POST BAKHTIYARPUR, P.S. BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA AT PRESENT POSTED AS BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BAIRGANIA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. ----- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Suman Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 2 21.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.12.2006 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated the prosecution case as made out in the complaint petition by a teacher of a school is that some construction work was to be done for the school. The complainant began to undertake the construction of the two toilets etc. The money for the work was withdrawn by joint signature of the Principal of the school and the Secretary of the Education Committee. It has been alleged by the complainant that the Secretary of the Education Committee as well as the Principal demanded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- for passing the said bills. The complainant is said to have made a complaint to the Block Education Extension Officer, Bairgania, Sitamarhi (Petitioner) and the Officer Incharge of Bairgania. On the basis of the aforesaid 2 facts, the petitioner who is the Block Education Extension Officer has been made accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code deals with extortion which envisages that if a person 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”. It would apparent from the definition of the offence that the petitioner had neither demanded any money nor had he threatened or put the complainant in any fear or in fact had any interaction with the complainant and as such the offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against this petitioner. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance dated 30.12.2006, passed in Complaint Case No. C-I/1286/06 giving rise to Trial No. 2058 of 2006. This application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)