Full Judgment
Criminal Revision Nos.1162/2012 & 1163/2012 27.02.2013 Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni counsel for the applicants.
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
Since both the revisions are connected with the same case therefore, decided by a common order.
The applicants have challenged the order dated 17.4.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Maihar, District Satna in S.T.No.76/12, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 341/34, 386/34, 325/34 & 294 of IPC were framed against the applicants.
They have also challenged the order dated 16.5.2012 of the same case, by which the charge of the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC was modified into the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 329/34 of IPC.
The prosecution's case, in short is that, on 11.12.2011 at about 9:15 p.m.the applicants assaulted the victim Suraj Prasad @ Tata Soni at village Ghunwara, Police Station Amdara, District Satna with the pretext that he should have signed on a blank stamp paper so that the document of transfer of property could be prepared.
The applicants abused the victim and also threatened him.
Initially, the police has registered a case under Sections 341, 308, 386, 294 read with Section 34 of IPC but at the time of framing of the charges, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that no charge of the offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC is made out against the applicant and therefore, only the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 325/34 of IPC were framed and thereafter, the charges were amended and charges of the offences punishable under Sections 329/34 of IPC were added by reducing the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 325/34 of IPC.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the applicants challenge the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 386 & 329 of IPC only.
By perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the charge of the offence punishable under Section 329 of IPC shall be constituted and therefore, no illegality or perversity has been done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in framing of such a charge.
However, for the offence of extortion, it is necessary that movable property should be delivered for which the inducement was done by the culprits.
In other words, the extortion would be complete if extorted property was handed over to the accused but in the present case, it is apparent that the victim did not sign on the stamp paper and therefore, no inducement property was handed over to the applicant.
Hence, the offence of extortion was not made out and therefore, no offence punishable under Section 386 of IPC or any offence of the similar nature is made out against the applicant.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 386/34 of IPC without any basis.
Thus, an interference can be done by this Court by way of the present revision for that charge only.
Consequently, the revisions filed by the applicants are hereby partly allowed and therefore, those are disposed of with the directions that the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 386/34 of IPC could not be framed against them and that charge be deleted from the memo of the charges for both the applicants.
They are discharged from the charges of the offence punishable under Sections 386/34 of IPC.
A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and to proceed with the trial.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj