The Allahabad High Court observed that an aggrieved person is a necessary ingredient to attract extortion under Section 383/384 of Indian Penal Code.

The Lucknow Bench of the Court observed thus in an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing the charge sheet arising out of the FIR under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh observed: "As per the provisions of Section 383 I.P.C., it is necessary that there must be an aggrieved person in the case of extortion."

The court further noted: “It is evident from the record that no alleged photograph is annexed with the case diary. Further when there is no aggrieved person in the case of extortion, then merely on the basis of imagination, no such person can be implicated. As the charge sheet was bet by Prosecuting Officer and approved by Circle Officer of the area in question in the most negligent manner without considering the ingredients of Section 383 I.P.C., therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned charge sheet dated 13.10.2020 and its consequential proceedings as well the summoning order dated 25.04.2022 along with the order dated 02.08.2023 are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside.”

Advocate Riyaz Ahmad represented the applicant while A.G.A. represented the opposite parties.

Facts of the Case -

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated in the case on the basis of presumption that he was extorting the money from truck drivers. He further submitted that the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the Sub Inspector with the averment that when he was patrolling along with a Constable, he received a video, in which, he found that at No Entry Point, one police personnel was extorting the money from truck drivers and was keeping it in his pocket. On taking cognizance of the said video, Sub Inspector went at No Entry Point and the alleged video was shown to the person who was deployed at No Entry Point and then the said person admitted that the photo in the alleged video was of him but it was old video.

In the above regard, the name of deployed police personnel was asked and search was also conducted and then it was found that he was the applicant who was deployed as home guard at the No Entry Point. After search, total thirty rupees (three notes of ten rupees) were found from his pocket and after interrogation, he admitted that he was taking the money from people those were passing from the No Entry Point. He also stated that all the extorted money has already been spent, and he also told that Rs. 30/- which were recovered from him was brought from his house. Thereafter, the statements of Constable and Sub Inspector were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer.

The High Court in the above context of the case said, “… the present case is the classic example of false implication, in which, the applicant has been victimized by implicating him falsely and, hence, he should be compensated with the cost of some token amount.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application and awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the applicant.

Cause Title- Ram Gopal Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC-LKO:82336)

Click here to read/download the Judgment