Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are husband and wife against whom charges were framed for offences under Sections 384 and 385 IPC in C.C. No.121 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore. The sum and substance of the charge is that on 24.07.2004 at about 8.45 P.M., the petitioners, by throwing used articles in front of the residence of the complainant, threatened him with a view to extort Rs.3,00,0000/-. The present petition has been filed to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners before the trial court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that, even before the present complaint lodged by the defacto complainant on 24.07.2004, a complaint had already been given by the first petitioner to the very same respondent-police on 16.07.2004 specifically stating that the first petitioner was residing at the residence of the complainant on payment of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance on 03.06.2002 and though he agreed to vacate the premises, since the money paid as advance had not been returned, he did not vacate, whereupon, the complainant was threatening the first petitioner that he would break open the lock and enter into the house which was in occupation of the first petitioner. The respondent-police entertained such complaint in Petition No.138 of 2004. In the meantime, the first petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No.2590 of 2004 before the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, and in the interlocutory application filed viz., I.A. No.1352 of 2004, an order has been passed to maintain the status quo. According to the learned counsel, the above aspects would clearly reveal that the present complaint has been lodged only to offset the consequences of the complaint preferred by the first petitioner against the defacto complainant and further, the offences alleged against the petitioners are not substantiated, hence, the proceedings before the trial court may be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that a perusal of the statement of witnesses would show that the first petitioner had thrown used articles in front of the residence of the complainant and thereby threatened him, demanding Rs.3,00,000/-; in such circumstances, the offences alleged have been substantiated and hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. 4. I have perused the materials available on record and carefully considered the submissions made on either side The present complaint was given on 24.07.2004. 4. I have perused the materials available on record and carefully considered the submissions made on either side The present complaint was given on 24.07.2004. One week prior to the same, the first petitioner had given a complaint before the very same respondent-police on 16.07.2004 stating that he was a tenant with the complainant on payment of advance of Rs.3,00,000/-and since he had promised to vacate the premises, the complainant assured him to return back the money and as there was failure on his part to make good the assurance, a dispute arose and only under such circumstances, the complaint was filed. It could be seen that, only during the pendency of such complaint with the police, as a counteraction, the present complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant with the allegation that the first petitioner had thrown used articles in front of the house of the complainant and threatened him with a view to extort Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also stated in the complaint that he never received Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioners. The complaint dated 16.07.2004 lodged by the first petitioner was pending enquiry with the respondent police at the time of entertaining the present complaint, thus, Prima facie, it is a case in counter. The respondent-police could have investigated both the cases together and reached a final conclusion, in particular about the receipt of amount in question by the defacto complainant. Apparently, other contemporaneous materials substantiate the defence put forth by the first petitioner and create doubt about the genuineness of the allegations made by the complainant. Moreover, in order to constitute the offence as outlined under Section 383 IPC, the following ingredients are required:- .(a) The person who is a victim of extortion must have delivered to accused or any other person some property or any document, which can be converted into valuable security, .(b) such delivery must be in pursuance of a dishonest inducement of the beneficiary or somebody on behalf of the beneficiary, and .(c) such inducement by the accused must be with an intention to put the deliverer in fear of injury and such delivery must be as a result of such fear of injury. A close perusal of the materials available and the facts and circumstances involved would clearly show that none of the above elements is present in the case on hand. 5. A close perusal of the materials available and the facts and circumstances involved would clearly show that none of the above elements is present in the case on hand. 5. In this view of the matter, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners pending in C.C. No.121 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore, are quashed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.