Shashi Sekhar Giri @ Shashi Goswami vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous  Petition has been filed invoking  the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.491 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308 (6)/ 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid case.

At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not press the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition in respect of the petitioner no.3- Rinku Devi.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not pressed so far as the petitioner no.3-Rinku Devi is concerned.

So far as the petitioner nos.1  and 2 are  concerned,  the allegation against  the  petitioners  is  that  both  the  petitioner  nos.1  and  2  being the brothers-in-law of the informant i.e. the brothers of his wife, have pressurized the informant to withdraw his divorce case and the petitioner nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, are demanding Rs.7,00,000/- from the informant and thereby a threatening is given by the co-accused Indu Devi  and  her  husband  Ramanand  Goswami.  Rinku  Devi  being  the petitioner no.3 from time-to-time is threatening to send the informant to  jail by  implicating him in  a false case. On  the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.491 of 2024 and took up the investigation of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 and 2 submits that the allegation  against  the  petitioners  is  false.  The  specific  allegation  of demand of money from the informant is against Indu Devi, Ramanand Goswami and Rinku Devi-petitioner no.3. There is no direct allegation against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 of demanding any money  or  extortion.  It  is  next  submitted  that  the  allegation  against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 is false. Admittedly, this case has been instituted after institution of the case by the co-accused-Divya Jyoti, alleging treatment withcruelty in connection with demand of dowry inter alia against the informant, which has been registered as Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.168 of 2023 and because of the same, this false case has been foisted inter alia against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 to wreak vengeance. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations  made  against  the  petitioner  nos.  1  and  2  are  considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 308 (6)/3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that there is sufficient material in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 308 (6) of the B.N.S., 2023. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under  Section 308  (6) of the B.N.S., 2023 are as follows:-

The accused put the victim or any other person in fear of accusation against the victim himself or against that other person;

Accusation was in respect of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for a  term which  may extend  to ten years;

Accused  committed  or  attempted  to  commit  an  offence by inducing any person to commit any offence as indicated above;

The accused did so in order to commit extortion.

Now,  coming  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  there  is  no  direct  allegation against  either  of  the  petitioner nos.1  and  2  that  the  petitioner  nos.1 and  2,  put  the  informant  or  any  other  person,  in  fear  of  accusation against  the  victim.  The  only  allegation  against  the petitioner nos.1 and  2  is  that  a  threatening  was  given  to  the  informant  to  implicate him in false case but there is no material in the record to suggest as to the allegation of implicating in false case relates to which offence and in the absence of the alleged offence relating to which the false case was threatened to be instituted being specified, it is not known that the accusation was in respect of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for a  term which may extend to ten years or not. Further, the accusation of implicating the informant in the false case is specifically against the co-accused Rinku Devi-petitioner no.3 and there is no allegation in the F.I.R against either of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, of having whispered anything in this respect.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made in the F.I.R. of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case  No.491  of  2024  are  considered  to  be  true  in  their  entirety  still the offence punishable under Section 308 (6) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out. Therefore, keeping in view the admitted relationship between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2  with the informant respectively being his brothers-in-law and also keeping in view the pendency of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.168 of 2023, lodged by the co-accused- Divya Jyoti against the informant; in which after investigation of the case, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance of the offence, has also been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, this Court is of the considered view, that as no offence against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 is made out, even if the allegations made against them in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this is a fit case where the F.I.R. of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.491 of 2024 as well  as  the  entire  criminal  proceedings  arising  out  of  the  aforesaid case, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner nos.1 and 2  of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

Accordingly, the F.I.R. of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.491 of 2024 as well  as  the  entire  criminal  proceedings  arising  out  of  the  aforesaid case, is quashed and set aside  qua the petitioner nos.1 and 2  of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed to the aforesaid extent only.