CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.877 OF 2007 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.) 1. MR.AZIM PREMJI @ AZIM H.PREMJI, Son of Late M.H. Premji, Chairman cum Managing Director, Wipro Limited, 76, Doddakannelli, Vartur, Hubli, Sarjapur Road, Carmelaram, Bangalore-560 035, Karnataka 2. Mr. Ananth Narayanan Padmanabhan @ A. Padmanabhan, S/o Mr. C.S. Ananth Narayanan, General Manager- Legal Wipro Limited, 76, Doddakannelli, Sarjapur Road-Bangalore, Karnataka ------------Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Gokul Prasad Agarwal, S/o Late Awadh Bihari Agarwal, Muhalla- Mahajan Toli, P.S. & P.O.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas, Bihar -------------Opposite Parties For the Petitioners:- Mr. Avanish Kr. Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party :- Mr. Bajrangi Lal Adv. For the State:- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN *********** Sheema Ali Khan, J. Heard the parties. 2. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the opposite party no. 2 had filed a complaint case numbered as Complaint Case No. 714 (C) of 2006 in which he has alleged that three persons from Wipro Company had approached the complainant in 1994 and demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- each. These persons were Pravin Jotwani and Gautam Basu. After bail was granted to the two aforesaid persons they failed to appear in Court and 2 as a consequence of which the petitioner rang up the Managing Director and the Chairman of the Wipro company. It is alleged that the aforesaid persons abused the petitioner. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations these two petitioners who are the Managing Director, Chairman-cum-Managing Director and General Manager living at Banglore have been made accused in this case. Cognizance has been taken under Sections 384 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code on 28.8.2006 which has been challenged in this Court. 4. Section 383 defines extortion, it envisages that if any person puts any person in fear of any bodily injury and thereby induces him to deliver any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into valid security, commits extortion. Even it is presumed that the allegations are true, no offence is made out under Section 383 or for that matter under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as there is no such allegation against the petitioners. 5. Sections 504 and 506 envisage that there should be some insult or provocation to a 3 person in public view, with the intention provoke a person or know that such provocation is of such a nature that it is likely to break public peace. 6. This Court finds in fact a conversation over the telephone can hardly be a cause for provocation to anyone to break public peace. 7. This Court also finds the entire allegation quite unbelievable. In a Company of this nature which is so widespread, there are well established procedure for carrying out business, and a certain hierarchy in the manner of conducting business. It is unbelievable that the complainant could have called up the Chairman-cum-Managing Director directly, for the purposes of getting the address of two persons namely, Pravin Jotwani and Gautam Basu. It can hardly be believed that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director or the General Manager of the company, would have address of these two persons readily available, for the Complainant. As such this Court does not believe the complainant story that he had called up the two high-ups in the company, to ask for the address of Pravin Jotwani and Gautam Basu. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I quash the order dated 28.08.2006 passed in 4 Complaint Case No.714 (C ) of 2006 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Sasaram. 9. This application is allowed. Patna High Court Dated 2nd of May, 2011 Anand Kr./NAFR ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)