Pressurising Someone To Give Up Demand For Repayment Of Money Is Not 'Extortion' As Per Section 383 IPC : Bombay High Court

Threatening someone to make him give up his demand for repayment of his money does not amount to extortion, the Bombay High Court held while quashing an extortion case by Kailash Agarwal, owner of the Avighna Group, against Worli businessman Hemant Banker. Agarwal had alleged that gangster Vijay Shetty threatened him on the behest of Hemant or his son Rupin Banker.“…this threat was not for what is understood as the offence of extortion but for pressurizing respondent no.2 (Aggarwal) into giving up his demand for repayment of money, which was out of the scope of offence of extortion, as defined under Section 383 IPC”, a division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice MM Sathaye said.Referring to Supreme Court precedents such as Isaac Isanga Musumba and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2014) 15 SCC 357, the Court observed "not only putting a person under fear of any injury and dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver the property but also actual delivery of property are a sine-qua-non of the offence of extortion, as defined under Section 383 IPC". In this regard, the division bench also distinguished the judgment of a coordinate bench in Bhagwan Gajanan Phandat Vs. State of Maharashtra by holding that it was contrary to the Supreme Court precedent. The court observed that such a threat is prima facie criminal intimidation, but as Banker was not the one who actually made the alleged threats, no offence is prima facie made out against him.The court also quashed the case against Rupin Banker’s wife Menakshi, as well as the sanction order to prosecute the Bankers for organised crime under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).Aggarwal alleged that Rupin and Meenakshi Banker submitted forged documents at Bar Dubai branch of Bank of Baroda and fraudulently withdrew Rs. 35 Crores from his account. The criminal court, Dubai has found Rupin and Meenakshi Banker guilty regarding the fraudulent withdrawal and imposed punishment.He further alleged that in July 2019, when he was in Mauritius and a few days later in Dubai, he received calls from gangster Vijay Shetty who threatened him not to demand money from Banker family or else, he would have to lose his life. Aggarwal claimed that the calls were made at the behest of Rupin Banker or Hemant Banker.After his return to India, Aggarwal allegedly received a call on August 8, 2019, from Hemant Banker, who denied making Vijay Shetty threaten him and sought time to return the money. Aggarwal alleged that Vijay Shetty called him on August 10, 2019, and told him not to demand any money from Rupin Banker and to give him 6 months for repayment.A case under section 387 (punishment for extortion) of the IPC was registered against Vijay Shetty, Rupin Banker, Meenakshi Banker, and Hemant Banker. The Anti-Extortion Cell also registered a crime under sections 387 and 120B (punishment for criminal conspiracy). The Anti-Extortion Cell got sanction to prosecute the Bankers and Vijay Shetty for organized crime via an order under section 23(1)(a) of the MCOCA. The order was based on alleged offences of extortion, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy against the accused. Thus, sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOCA were added against the Bankers and other accused. Hemant and Meenakshi Banker challenged the sanction order and sought to quash the FIRs against them.The court said that for the offence of extortion under section 383 of IPC to be made out, it is not only necessary that the person must be put in fear of death or grievous hurt, but it is equally necessary that the person was dishonestly induced to deliver property or valuable security.The court said that while an FIR is not an encyclopedia for all facts related to the case, it has to mention basic facts from which a commission of a cognizable offence can be inferred in order to set the criminal law in motion.The FIR at its face value does not disclose that the threats issued were to compel Aggarwal to give something or that Agarwal actually delivered property or valuable security because of those threats, the court observed. As these ingredients are missing from the allegations, no offence of extortion is made out, the court opined.For criminal conspiracy, there must be an agreement between two or more persons for doing an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. The court noted that Aggarwal never alleged that there was any agreement for issuing threats or death threats to him between Vijay Shetty and the Bankers. Though criminal agreement need not always be express and can be inferred by surrounding circumstances, in the present case there is no material to show prima facie existence of criminal agreement, the court opined. Further, since the offence of extortion has not been prima facie made out, even the offence of criminal conspiracy in the context of extortion is not prima facie made out against any of the applicants, the court held.The court opined that the ...

Pressurising Someone To Give Up Demand For Repayment Of Money Is Not 'Extortion' As Per Section 383 IPC : Bombay High Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Pressurising Someone To Give Up Demand For Repayment Of Money Is Not 'Extortion' As Per Section 383 IPC : Bombay High Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers