'Respected Cultural Organisation Maligned': Allahabad High Court Quashes Extortion Case, Slams 'Misuse' Of RSS Membership By Informant

A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that a “highly disciplined and respected cultural organisation like the RSS” had been maligned by its member (informant) who had misused his status to settle a personal parking dispute, which amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

Furthermore, the single judge said that it was for the RSS to determine whether it sanctions the 'browbeating' of common citizens by its members, specifically where such intimidation was exercised under the weight of their office.

The Court added that it was not well equipped to go any further with regard to the acts of Informant/Opposite Party No.2 in misusing the name of a “respected cultural organisation” in the manner in which it had been done.

With this, the High Court granted relief to the applicants [President, Secretary and Caretaker of the RWA] and quashed the criminal proceedings against them under Sections 308(2), 351(2), 352 BNS.

BRIEFLY PUT, a dispute arose in the residential society after the RWA, at its board meeting on November 24, 2024, passed a resolution to regulate haphazard parking in the area.

The residents were allotted one slot of their choice for parking of their vehicles. It was also decided that, in the event of non-compliance with the guidelines, advice would be issued at first instance.

However, in case of repeating the violation, vehicles will be locked and locks will be opened by giving warning and at the third instance, Rs.500/- penalty would be levied.

The Opposite Party No. 2 (Informant) was wrongly parking his vehicle, which was opposed to, and, in retaliation, he lodged an FIR against the RWA office bearers (applicants).

Notably, as the Court noted in its order, in the FIR, the Informant explicitly introduced himself as a B.Tech, entrepreneur, social worker and a Trustee of Bhavrao Devras Trust of RSS. He also alleged that the RWA was a headless body acting like a 'mafia' and that they were extracting money and issuing threats.

Challenging the FIR as well as the chargesheet, the applicants moved the HC, wherein they contended that the proceedings against them were initiated at the instance of the informant only with a view to harass and browbeat them and this was reflected from the description of the membership of the informant in the organization

On the other hand, the counsel for the Informant argued that the RWA's management was a 'kleptocracy' thrust upon him and that he and his family were made to feel "small, pipsqueak" by the RWA's "egregious, bellicose orders".

He also contended that finding his car jammed was the "last straw on the capacity to endure hardship", compelling him to file the FIR against the 'tyranny'.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the bench perused the FIR and noted that in the charge sheet, which included only the statements of the informant as well as the applicants, neither there was any allegation of intentional putting any person in fear of any injury, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security

Since no amount was actually paid by the Informant, the essential ingredient for extortion was missing, the bench noted. The Court further said that a resolution passed by an elected body to levy a penalty for welfare measures cannot be termed extortion.

Similarly, with respect to charges of criminal intimidation and intentional insult (Sections 351 and 352 BNS), the Court found no material to suggest that the applicants intended to provoke a breach of the peace or cause alarm.

Notably, the single judge came down heavily on the Investigating Officer in the case as he observed that the charge sheet was filed in a 'hurried manner' without recording statements from other residents or examining the RWA's bye-laws.

Opining that the investigation was "clearly half-baked", the bench found the probe to be done under the influence of the office held by the Informant.

Therefore, the bench directed that a copy of its order be placed in the Annual Confidential Report of the IO concerned, and that the same be also sent to the Director General of Police to decide whether the role of investigation can be entrusted to him.

In the concluding paragraphs, condemning the conduct of the Informant, the Court said that “With great powers come great responsibility”.

The Court explicitly stated: "Prima-facie, a highly disciplined and respected cultural organisation like the RSS has been maligned and the membership has been misused in the present case by Opposite Party No. 2".

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Advocate Mohit Mishra appeared for the applicants.

GA VK Singh, assisted by AGA-I Bhanu Pratap Singh, appeared for the State

Sr Counsel LP Mishra, alongwith Advocates Sriniwas Bajpai and Abhay Shukla, appeared for respondent no.2.