JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the record. 2. The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, `limbahera in revision whereby the Revisional Court upheld the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dungla taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Section 386 and 504 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the admitted allegations of the complainant as set out in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are accepted in the entirety then too no ingredients of the offences under Section 386 and 504 I.P.C. for which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners are made out. He thus prays that the order taking cognizance deserves to be quashed. He further contends that the two independent witnesses Jamnalal and Gyan Prakash Tripathi who have been examined in this case have not supported the case of the complainant regarding the abuses having been hurled by the petitioner and regarding extortion of money. He thus prays that the order taking cognizance deserves to be quashed. 4. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He, however, frankly concedes that there is no material on record regarding the petitioners having put the complainant into fear and thereby having induced him to deliver any property. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the order impugned and the record. 6. It is stated in the complaint by the complainant that the petitioners who were posted as doctors at the Community Health Centre, Dungla abused the complainant and threatened him that the delivery of his daughter-in-law would not be conducted unless he pays a sum of Rs. 1000/-. Undisputedly the said amount of Rs. 1000/- was not paid by the complainant to the petitioners. Thus, the essential ingredients of extortion as defined in Section 383 are not disclosed from the admitted allegations levelled in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The highest allegation of the complainant is that the petitioners threatened the complainant with dire consequences if the amount of Rs.
Thus, the essential ingredients of extortion as defined in Section 383 are not disclosed from the admitted allegations levelled in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The highest allegation of the complainant is that the petitioners threatened the complainant with dire consequences if the amount of Rs. 1000/- was not paid to them for conducting the delivery of his daughter-in-law. If these allegations are taken to be true on their face value, the offence would be covered under Section 385 I.P.C. The complainant further alleged that he was abused and insulted by the doctors. However, it is not his allegation that as a result of abuses hurled there was any apprehension or threat regarding breach of peace. Therefore, essential ingredients of the offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code. are also not made out. 7. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is hereby allowed. The order taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is quashed. So far as the cognizance for the offence under Section 386. I.P.C. is concerned, the order deserves to be modified and is hereby modified, now the cognizance against the petitioner shall be deemed to be for the offence under Section 385 I.P.C. The Trial Court shall proceed against the petitioners in relation to the commission of the said offence in accordance with law.Petition partly allowed. *******