JUDGMENT - PARKAR S.S., J.: The petitioners who are some of the accused in Criminal Case No. 126/S of 1992 in which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate's 27th Court at Mulund, Bombay issued process have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the same on the ground that it is absolutely false and frivolous private complaint filed with a view to harass the petitioners and other accused. 2. In order to appreciate the challenge made in this petition against the process issued in criminal case, it would be desirable to see the background between the family of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent No. 1 complainant. Petitioner No. 1's daughter was married to the son of the complainant in December, 1987. As the marriage was not successful, the divorce by consent had taken place between them before the Family Court at Bandra, Bombay. The reason mentioned in the petition for divorce is that the husband by name Sanjay and respondent No. 1 complainant used to torture the petitioner No. 1's daughter Harsha on account of inadequate dowry and for not meeting their unreasonable demands made for dowry. The divorce was effected ultimately in August 1991. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 started harassing petitioner in various ways. 3. The perusal of the complaint which is annexed at Exhibit 'C' to this petition shows that nine persons were made accused, however, process was not issued against accused Nos. 3 and 4 i.e Harsha who was married to the son of the complainant and her mother Savita, as the Advocate for the complainant deleted their names from the complaint on 28-7-1992. The order of the issue of process was passed on 28-7-1992 after recording the verification statement of the complainant. Though the process was issued against original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 9, the present petition is filed by only original accused Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and their employees run an educational institution in the name of KAREER College in Bombay and are having several Branches all over the Metropolis and suburbs. This petition came to be filed in this Court in September 1992. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and their employees run an educational institution in the name of KAREER College in Bombay and are having several Branches all over the Metropolis and suburbs. This petition came to be filed in this Court in September 1992. Rule was issued by this Court on 16-10-1992 and interim relief was granted in terms of prayer Clause (b) of the petition staying the hearing of the proceedings in the Criminal case pending in the trial Court. Although the respondent No. 1 complainant was served, yet neither the affidavit is filed in this Court contesting the averments made in the petition nor the complainant-respondent No. 1 has appeared at any time either himself or though an Advocate. 4. Mr. Gupte, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that although the complaint is filed, inter alia, for the offence under sections 384 and 387 of Indian Penal Code, the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for the said offence. I find substance in the said contention having regard to the definition of extortion given under section 383 of Indian Penal Code which is made punishable under sections 384 and 387 of the said Code. In order to constitute extortion what is required is that the person must be put intentionally in fear of any injury to that person or to any other person and thereby dishonestly induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security. The complaint which was read out to me by Mr. Gupte does not even allege that any property or valuable security was delivered to the accused by the complainant pursuant to any act of any of the accused to put the complainant in fear of any injury to himself or to any other person. Section 387 is an aggravated form of extortion in which the person is put in fear of commission of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or an imprisonment which may extend to 10 years. Reading the complaint as a whole, I find that it does not make out prima facie case for proceeding under section 384 or section 387 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Reading the complaint as a whole, I find that it does not make out prima facie case for proceeding under section 384 or section 387 of Indian Penal Code. 5. This leaves me to the consideration of making out a case for threats under section 506 of Indian Penal Code. There is no doubt that there are allegations made in the complaint that threats were held out by the petitioner No. 1 on telephone and the accused Nos. 5 and 6 are alleged to have abused the complainant and his family members in filthy language. The allegations of threats are made against accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, but the case against accused Nos. 3 and 4 has been dropped. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the father and son while accused Nos. 5 and 6 are the employees of the accused No. 1 who is running the college. There seems to be absolutely no reason for accused No. 1 to use his employees to abuse the complainant and his family members. In view to the background of the parties and the earlier marriage between the daughter of the petitioner No. 1 and son of complainant having been dissolved, it appears that the allegations must have been made with a view to harass the accused and in particular petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. Although the petition is pending in this Court challenging in truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint since the year 1992 and the complainant was served, he has not chosen to remain present or engage a lawyer and controvert or deny the averments made in the petition on affidavit in this Court and try to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. In my view, it would be futile and frivolous to make the petitioners face the trial. Complainant himself does not seem to be serious in prosecuting the said complaint, otherwise he would have contested the present petition. The allegations made in the complaint do not appear to be truthful on the face of them or having any tinge of truth. 6. In my view, in the aforesaid circumstances, it would be futile to keep the complaint alive and make the petitioners face the trial which on the face of it appears to be motivated. The allegations made in the complaint do not appear to be truthful on the face of them or having any tinge of truth. 6. In my view, in the aforesaid circumstances, it would be futile to keep the complaint alive and make the petitioners face the trial which on the face of it appears to be motivated. I, therefore, have no hesitation in exercising my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and inherent powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the complaint. 7. In the result I allow this petition and quash and set aside Criminal Case No. 126/S of 1992 pending in the Metropolitan Magistrate's 27th Court at Mulund, Bombay and the process issued therein on 28th July, 1992. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the petition. Petition allowed. -----