IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3439 of 2008 NAVENDU KUMAR THAKUR @ NAVEEN KUMAR THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5. 14.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None present on behalf of the State. None is present on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 on the second occasion despite valid service of notice. Learned counsel submits that the informant is none other than the own cousin of the petitioner. It is submitted that a bare reading of the allegations made in the First Information Report, makes it apparent that the allegations arise in the background of a property dispute between them in respect of certain immovable property. Title Suit No. 290 of 2005 is stated to have been filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The submission therefore is that the present criminal prosecution is an abuse of the process of law only to thwart the petitioners civil claims to the properties. He shall remain pre-occupied in defending himself in the criminal prosecution unable to pursue his civil remedies. Though the allegations are of throwing a bomb, the F.I.R. is not under any provision of the Explosive Substance Act. The First Information Report was essentially filed as a measure of self defence to deny that the petitioner had any claim in the properties as a co-sharer. The allegations for demands of extortion and embezzlement are purposefully vague as it does 2 not even mention the number of persons, or the date on which they came to the house of the informant, there is no allegation of threat to deliver any property or valuable security. The First Information Report has been registered under Sections 384 and 386 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Despite notice to the opposite Party no. 2 and valid service thereof, he has not chosen to appear and contest the present proceedings. This Court therefore proceeds to consider this application on basis of the allegations made in the First Information Report. First Information Report itself reveals that the parties are related to each other, and that there is a property dispute between them. The petitioner is staking a claim to his share of the properties as a co-sharer. He has also filed a title suit in respect of the same immovable property for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Sections 384, 386 and 387 of the Penal Code read as follows:- 384. Punishment for 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. 386. Extortion by putting a person in fear or death or grievous hurt- Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 387. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to 3 commit extortion- Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The necessary ingredient for extortion is putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing because of fear to deliver any property or valuable security. In the present case, the informant states that a bomb like object was exploded. There is no specific allegation of a bomb having been lobbed. The absence of any charge in the F.I.R. under the Explosives Substances Act assumes great significance at this stage. Additionally, the alleged bomb was neither thrown on the informant or inside his house but is acknowledged to have been thrown on the public road. It is difficult to comprehend that by such an act the informant was put to fear of any injury to him. There is no recital of the number of persons who had allegedly come to commit the act and on what date. The allegations appear to be purposefully vague in an attempt only to lend gravity. The F.I.R. does not state that by throwing the alleged bomb the petitioner wanted to obtain any property or valuable security. The petitioner is only stated to have said that the informant would not be able to enjoy prosperity by money. The penultimate line then baldly and vaguely states of a demand for Rs. five lacs without any details of the date, time and manner of the demand. 4 This Court has no hesitation in holding that the basic ingredients for applicability of Section 383 on which the offence under Section 384 is founded are completely lacking. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied of the inapplicability of Section 386 as there is no overt act against the petitioner putting the informant in fear of death or grievous hurt for the same reasons as discussed above. This Court is satisfied that the present allegations are an outcome of the immovable property dispute between the parties who are relatives. The allegations appear to have been made to give a criminal twist to what is otherwise a simple civil dispute between them with regard to share in properties. Learned counsel for the petitioner is further right in his submission that the allegations were basically made to embroil the petitioner in evading warrant of arrest, a criminal trial with a possible conviction leaving him no time to pursue his civil remedies which in any event were likely to take considerable time. This would enable the informant to keep enjoying the properties unilaterally and by his conduct over a period of time by transfer or otherwise of the immovable properties create irretrievable situation for the petitioner. This Court therefore holds that the criminal prosecution was but a ploy to divert attention of the petitioner from what is otherwise a pure and simple civil property dispute between the parties. 5 The resort to criminal prosecution is therefore clearly an abuse of the process of law. The entire proceedings against the petitioner in Patliputra P.S.Case no. 446 of 2003, G.R.No. 1607 of 2003 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna is hereby quashed. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)