JUDGMENT : 1. Since the present group of applications arise out of the same F.I.R., the same is decided by a common judgment. 2. The present applications have been filed by the applicants-original accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being No.I-124 of 2016 registered with Gandhigram Police Station, Dist: Rajkot. 3. The F.I.R. filed against the accused herein is the same hence, the facts of the Criminal Misc. Application No.9885 of 2016 are incorporated herein. 3.1 The contents of the impugned FIR reveal that the first informant submitted an application dated 02.03.2016 with D.C.B. Police Station pursuant to which he was summoned. It is mentioned that that a piece of land bearing Survey No.134 of Vejagam (Vajdi) of Rajkot Taluka was allotted to one Ex-Army man Shamjibhai Jesabhai Koli. Since Shamjibhai Jesabhai was willing to sell the same, the first informant decided to purchase it at the consideration of Rs.7,75,000/- (Seven Lacs Seventy five Thousand) and he made a sale deed in his favour as well as in the favour of his brother Jayantibhai Kotecha before Notary on the stamp paper of RS.20/- and also made one irrevocable power of attorney on the stamp paper of Rs.50/- for the purpose of title clearance and of obtaining sanction from the government for which the first informant paid Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) to Shamjibhai,, and thereafter, in the year 1999, he further paid Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs) by way of demand draft and also an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Only) in cash. Thereafter, Shamjibhai registered an agreement to sale on 19.5.1999 in favour of his father and four brothers and also gave a receipt as well as one power of attorney in favour of him and his father in law which was notarized on the same day. The permission was granted by the government on 9.1.2006 and amount of premium to the tune of 13,76,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Only). Thereafter, on the basis of the power of attorney his father in law Prabhudas made a registered sale deed in favour of Om Prakash Kotecha, Mukul Kotecha, Ketan Kotecha and his wife Deepaben at the office of the Subregistrar, Rajkot. 3.2 It is further stated by the first informant that even though the possession is with him since 1999. Thereafter, on the basis of the power of attorney his father in law Prabhudas made a registered sale deed in favour of Om Prakash Kotecha, Mukul Kotecha, Ketan Kotecha and his wife Deepaben at the office of the Subregistrar, Rajkot. 3.2 It is further stated by the first informant that even though the possession is with him since 1999. The daughters of Shamjibhai Kol, Ramaben, Savitaben and Jayaben gave one power of attorney to Kiranbhai Parshottambhai Hapaliya (A6) on the stamp paper of Rs.100/- as well as executed one agreement, whereby they received an amount of Rs.5,51,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Fifty One Thousand Only) in cash. 3.3 It is further alleged that Savitaben and Ritaben on 20.11.2012 executed one more power of attorney and entered into agreement with one Ashwinbhai Parshottambhai Patel (A-7), wherein they received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) from Ashwinbhai. 3.4 It is also alleged that Savitaben and Ritaben on 25.02.2015 gave one more power of attorney in favour of Jayminpari Maganpari Goswami and all these documents are not registered, but notarized. It is further stated that the daughter of Shamjibhai named Ritaben has lodged one FIR against him with D.C.B. Police Station, however, she has not disclosed that her father received an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs) by way of draft. 3.5 It is further stated that nearly before three and a half months Karanbhai Solanki, who is husband of Ramaben @ Ritaben asked him to come at the office of his advocate B.B.Mehta and asked him to enter into compromise and further informed that they have already received the amount and have sold the land to land mafias and if the he wants to compromise, he will have to pay crores of rupees. It is further alleged that Maganbhai Vaghela, who is husband of Savitaben also asked him to pay a money for compromising the matter and before one and half years, Karan along with nephew Karan who is a broker came to his Hotel Europine and demanded five crore rupees or else he would be filing a police complaint and he will have to go to jail. In both the power of attorney and settlement deeds Magan and Karan have signed as witnesses. In both the power of attorney and settlement deeds Magan and Karan have signed as witnesses. 3.6 It is stated that in the aforesaid manner even though he has purchased land from the deceased Shamjibhai Jesabhai Koli their legal heirs namley Ritaben @ Ramaben, Karanbhai Solanki, Savitaben, Maganbhai Vaghela as well as Kiranbhai Hapaliya, Ashwinbhai Parshottambhai Lila and Jaymingiri Magangiri Goswami and others whose names may reveal during investigation, in connivance with each other in a preplanned manner are trying to create disputes by making it subjudice for their personal benefit and for extorting huge amount even though they have no right, possession or interest in the said property and hence, the FIR. 3.7 The applicants have also preferred one Civil Suit before the Civil Court at Rajkot by way of filing Special Civil Suit No.157 of 2011 against the respondent no.2 and his other family members for cancellation of sale deed. The applicants have also filed an application seeking stay restricting the defendants not to sell, transfer or assign the said property in question during the pendecy of the Civil Suit at Exh.5 and the same was allowed by the Civil Court, thereby, restricting the defendants including the respondent no.2 herein from transferring or alienating or assigning the land in question in favour of anyone and creating third party interest. 4. Mr.K.S.Chandrani, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR in brief are that the petitioners have executed power of attorney and settlement deeds with third parties and also have received some consideration and thus committed the offences as stated in the FIR. It is submitted by him that even if the allegations are accepted as they are, the same do not constitute any offence under any of head of the IPC and not at all under Section 465, 467 and 468 of the IPC. It is submitted by him that even if the allegations are accepted as they are, the same do not constitute any offence under any of head of the IPC and not at all under Section 465, 467 and 468 of the IPC. 4.1 Learned advocates Mr.Chandrani has further submitted that even as per the allegations made in the FIR filed by the respondent no.2, the power of attorney as well as the agreement of understanding between the parties are entered into between the parties and are signed before the pubic notary and in such case, the same cannot be termed as false or forged documents, as the respective parties to the documents have signed the same in presence of pubic notary and hence, no offence of forgery as alleged is made out. 4.2 Learned advocates Mr.Chandrani has submitted that it is the case of the respondent no.2 that the power of attorney as well as agreement of understanding has been entered into between the applicants and the accused nos.6, 7 and 8, but no such complaint has been filed by the accused nos.6, 7 and 8, but on the contrary, they have also been arraigned as accused and hence, the FIR is a clear abuse of process of law. It is further contended that even if the case of the first informant is taken at its face value the allegations made therein does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 464 of the IPC. Therefore, execution of such document is not an execution of a forged document as defined under Section 464 of the IPC. If such documents are executed they cannot be termed as forged document and forgery is not established. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 468 of the IPC would be attracted and hence, no offence under the said sections would be attracted. If such documents are executed they cannot be termed as forged document and forgery is not established. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 468 of the IPC would be attracted and hence, no offence under the said sections would be attracted. 4.3 Learned advocates Mr.Chandrani has submitted that the aforesaid documents came to be notarized before the notary on 20.11.2012, and thereafter, it is because of the assistance and aid of the accused no.7, the applicants are liable to defend their case and got an order in their favour below Exh.5 and the applicants were able to lodge the FIR against the respondent no.2, wherein he along with other accused came to be charge-sheeted, and therefore, being annoyed by the support and assistance provided by the accused no.7, the present FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.2 and hence, the same deserved to be quashed and set aside. It is further contended that applicants submit that even the FIR is lodged after a period of 3 years and 6 months and hence, the same is delayed without there being any justifiable and cogent reason. 4.4 Learned advocates Mr.Chandrani has submitted that the dispute is purely of a civil nature. The proceedings with regard to the land in question in nature of Special Civil Suit is already filed before the Civil Court and the application below Exh.5 for stay has also been preferred by the applicants and the same has also been allowed in favour of the applicants, and therefore, to give a colour of criminal offence to such a civil dispute, is an abuse of process of law. In such circumstances referred to above, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. 5. Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant-Jatin Hasmukhbhai Pipaliya (Crim.M.A No.5859/2016) has submitted that the name of applicant does not figure in the FIR. Subsequently in the draft charge sheet, he has been arrayed as an accused. It is stated that he had entered in the settlement deed dated 25.2.2015 with Ritaben for which he had paid Rs.41,51,000/- by cheque and cash. 5.1 Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant-Babubhai Nanjibhai Bhokhodiya (Crim. Misc. Application No. 10140/16 has submitted that his name also does not figure in the charge sheet. It is stated that he had entered in the settlement deed dated 25.2.2015 with Ritaben for which he had paid Rs.41,51,000/- by cheque and cash. 5.1 Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant-Babubhai Nanjibhai Bhokhodiya (Crim. Misc. Application No. 10140/16 has submitted that his name also does not figure in the charge sheet. The role attributed to him in the draft charge sheet is that they have helped the other accused in making the documents relating to power of attorney and settlement deed. Thus, even if the allegations are accepted then also no offence under section 385, 389, 418, 423, 477, 506(2), 120B and section 34 are established against both the applicants. Hence, Cri. Misc. Application No.5859/2016 and Crim. Misc. Application No. 10140/16 are allowed. 5.2 It is further contended that the allegations made in the FIR of executing the power of attorney to someone empowering him to do any act on behalf of the donor itself cannot constitute an offence and hence, the FIR is nothing, but sheer misuse of process of law. 6. In response, the learned APP H.K.Patel for the state has submitted that the contents of the FIR and the draft charge sheet reveal that the present applicants are involved in the offence of extortion. It is submitted that the first informant was called by the petitioners for meeting at the office of an advocate Mr.B.B.Mehta, for compromise, and demanded crores of rupees. 6.1 It is asserted by the learned APP that it appears that the first informant is the rightful owner of the plot of land which belonged to one Shamjibhai who was an Ex-Army man. His daughter Ritaben lodged one FIR against the first informant which came to be registered on 20.3.15 with DCB Police Station Rajkot vide C.R.No.II of 2015 under section 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 447, 114 and 34 of IPC. The daughters of Shamjibhai namely Ritaben and Savitaben have also preferred Civil Suit before the Civil Court, Rajkot being Special Civil Suit No.157 of 2011 against the first informant and his family members for cancellation of sale deed. It is also stated by the first informant that in the FIR filed against him by Ritaben, she has suppressed the page of the passbook showing the payment of Rupees four lacs by him to his father. It is also stated by the first informant that in the FIR filed against him by Ritaben, she has suppressed the page of the passbook showing the payment of Rupees four lacs by him to his father. 6.2 Learned APP Mr.H.K.Patel on instructions of the Investigating officer has submitted that so far the offences of forgery are concerned, the same are not made out against the present applicants. However, he has submitted that further investigation reveals that the offences of extortion and cheating are prima facie established against them. He has placed reliance on the statement of various witnesses in this regard. 6.3 Learned APP Mr.H.K.Patel has placed reliance on the various statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer. He has placed reliance on the statement of Jitulbhai Jentilal Kotecha and Lalbhai Koraiya recorded by the Investigating Officer on 18.07.2016. He has stated that prior eight months from today, he has called his advocate friend Harshadbhai on mobile phone, at that time, his friend Harshadbhai informed him that advocate Babubhai is with him and he wanted to talk him about the disputed land, and thereafter, he talked to said advocate. The advocate informed him that in order to compromise, a huge money has to be paid to Karanbhai, Maganbhai etc. and when he asked about the amount, advocate Babubhai informed him that they are demanding Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Only) in order to enter into compromise otherwise he will enter into settlement agreement with head strong persons. 6.4 Learned APP has also placed reliance on the statement of Mr.Jenish Premjibhai Motivaras recorded by the Investigating Officer on 20.05.2016 in which he has stated that he was contacted by one Shri Kapilbhai Kotecha, who had taken him to one shop, wherein one person was sitting and was talking about the dealing to be done in some land, and thereafter, he informed him that, if he would like to invest in the said land, he can sign on the documents brought by him. The said persons informed him that the land belongs to two ladies and accordingly, he has prepared the compromise in his name on the stamp paper of Rs.100/-. The said persons informed him that the land belongs to two ladies and accordingly, he has prepared the compromise in his name on the stamp paper of Rs.100/-. It is submitted by Mr.Jenish Premji that thereafter, he signed the said documents pertaining to the compromise and accordingly, the said person had asked him to pay Rs.25,000/- and further Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) to be paid within a period of three months. It is further stated by Mr.Jenish Premji that he did not take any receipt from that unknown persons about the amount and only received business card in which his name and address was given. It is lastly submitted by him that that unknown person had committed fraud of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only), however, he has not lodged any police complaint in that regard. 6.5 Learned APP has also placed reliance on the statement dated 21.05.2016 taken by the Investigating Officer of one Prakash Kishorbhai Jariya, who has stated that he had given Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Only) to one Ashwinbhai Parshottambhai Lila on 12.04.2016, but he did not take any receipt to that effect. It is submitted by him he read in the newspaper about the incident. When he tried to contact Ashwinbhai, his mobile phone was switch off, and thereafter, he contacted Jetul Kotecha and went with him at DCB Police Station for giving statements. It is submitted by him that Ashwinbhai had given him one compromise on the stamp paper of Rs.100/as well as copy of power of attorney. 6.6 Learned APP has also relied upon one statement of Narendrabhai Chaganbhai Nasit recorded by the Investigating Officer on 21.05.2016 in which he has stated that he was approached by one Mr.Ashwinbhai to invest in the said land and also demanded Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs and Fifty Thousand Only) for investment and accordingly, he had paid cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) on 18.11.2012 which was in the name of his brother Ramesh Chagan Nasit, and thereafter, he paid cash of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only), and thereafter, he was called on 20.11.2012 at Rajkot Court to execute a compromise deed where Geetaben and Savitaben were present with their husbands. It is stated by him that Ashwinbhai thereafter was talking to the said farmers that Jitulbhai Kotecha is a Businessman and if we forced him, he would pay Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) or Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only), at that time, he told Ashwinbhai that he would not like to do such, and thereafter, went from there with his younger brother. He has submitted that he has not signed anywhere on the compromise deed and had put a cross on the name of his younger brother and the said compromise was written by the Ashwinbhai after one and half months. He has further submitted that he had not filed any police complaint in relation to Rs 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs and Fifty Thousand) taken by Ashwinbhai. 6.7 Learned APP has further placed reliance on the statement of one Punit S/o. Narsibhai Udesa recorded by the Investigating Officer on 09.06.2016 and he has specifically stated there was a dispute going on between Karanbhai Solanki and Jetulbhai and one half prior, his uncle Karanbhai met Jitulbhai Kotecha at Europine Hotel for entering into compromise, at that time, Jetulbhai had made an offer of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs and Fifty Thousand) for compromise and on hearing that, his uncle Karan Solanki left the hotel. It is further stated that when he met his uncle Karanbhai outside the hotel, at that time, his uncle informed that he would not accept Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand) for compromise with Jitulbhai. 6.8 In view of the aforesaid statement, learned APP has submitted that prima facie, case of extortion is made out against the present applicants and hence, FIR may not be quashed at this stage. 7. Learned Advocate Mr.Dave for the first informant has maintained the submissions advanced by Mr.H.K.Patel, learned APP for the respondent-State. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned advocates for the respective parties. 9. The impugned FI.R being C.R. I124 of 2016 is registered for the offences under section 465, 467, 468, 120B and 34 of the IPC against the present writ applicants. During the pendency of the writ applications a draft charge sheet is produced in which offences are altered to section 385, 389, 418, 423, 477, 506(2), 130B, 34 of IPC. 9. The impugned FI.R being C.R. I124 of 2016 is registered for the offences under section 465, 467, 468, 120B and 34 of the IPC against the present writ applicants. During the pendency of the writ applications a draft charge sheet is produced in which offences are altered to section 385, 389, 418, 423, 477, 506(2), 130B, 34 of IPC. Thus, this court has to examine whether the contents of the F.I.R reveal the offence of extortion and cheating against the present applicants. Section 384 of CrPC stipulates that whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both. Section 385 of CrPc reads as under: SECTION 385 : Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion : - Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. I may with profit quote the scope of the aforesaid sections from Law of Crimes (Ratanlal & Dhirajlal). Section 385 seeks to punish an attempt to commit extortion when the attempt has failed, the offence is not complete and the property is not delivered. Section 384 and 385 : relative scope: By this section a distinction between inchoate and the consummated offence is recognized. The attempt to commit extortion has proceeded so far towards completion that a person has been put in fear; but the offence is incomplete because there has been no delivery of property, etc. The Court must be satisfied that the putting in fear was with the intention of extorting delivery of some property. Evidence: The prosecution must prove : (i) That the accused put the complainant in fear, or attempted to put him fear, (ii) That fear was regarding some injury (iii) That the accused did as above to commit extortion. Thus, the section requires of putting a person in fear of any injury while attempting extortion. Section 44 of IPC defines injury. SECTION 44 : "Injury" The word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, injury denotes any harm caused to any person, in body, mind reputation or property. Thus, the section requires of putting a person in fear of any injury while attempting extortion. Section 44 of IPC defines injury. SECTION 44 : "Injury" The word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, injury denotes any harm caused to any person, in body, mind reputation or property. 9.1 In the present case, the contents of the FIR reveal that the daughter of Shamjibhai namely Ritaben and Savitaben have executed various powers of attorneys with other accused in order to jeopardize the right and title of the land belonging to the first informant for the purpose of extorting money. It is also alleged that before three months, the husband of Ritaben @ Ramaben had called him at the office of one advocate Mr.B.B.Mehta, for compromise, and informed him that he has already executed the title of land to land mafias and has taken the money from them, and if he wants to compromise, he will have to give crores of rupees. After, one or two days, Kalubhai called him and told that Karanbhai has informed him (Kalubhai) that the husband of Savitaben, i.e Maganbhai has demanded money in order to enter into compromise. It is also alleged that before one and half years, Karan had visited at his hotel Europine along with his broker friend Puneet Koli, and had demanded five crores from him, and also told, if does not do so, he will lodge a complaint against him and he will have to go to jail. Both these persons Magan and Karan have signed as witness in the power of attorney documents. The first informant has alleged that Karanbhai Gordhanbhai Solanki and Maganbhai Devabhai Vaghela (Applicants of Application No.10534/2016) had contacted him and have said that the land has been transferred to land mafias and if he wants to compromise he has to part with corers of rupees. The demand of money by way of compromise will satisfy the ingredients of section 385. The foregoing analysis and observations, prima facie reveal that there is an attempt to extort money from the first informant by Karanbhai Gordhanbhai Solanki (Applicant no.1 of Cri.Misc Application No.10534/2016) husband of Ritaben @ Ramaben and Maganbhai Devabhai Vaghela (Applicant No.2 of Cri.Misc.Application No.10534/2016), who is the husband of Savitaben. The foregoing analysis and observations, prima facie reveal that there is an attempt to extort money from the first informant by Karanbhai Gordhanbhai Solanki (Applicant no.1 of Cri.Misc Application No.10534/2016) husband of Ritaben @ Ramaben and Maganbhai Devabhai Vaghela (Applicant No.2 of Cri.Misc.Application No.10534/2016), who is the husband of Savitaben. While exercising the inherent powers under section 482, the High Court cannot examine the element of “fear of any injury” as envisaged in section 385. Section 44 of IPC defines injury related to any harm caused to property. Even if the contents of the FIR do not reveal that the person is not put in fear, but if the same prima facie reveal case of attempt of extortion, the High Court cannot examine whether the person was in fact put under fear as a result of such attempt. “Fear” is an amorphous term relating to the mental state of person. Whether he is put in a “fear” due to an attempt of extortion can only be examined during the Trial. 9.2 It is not in dispute that Ritaben and Savitaben have executed various powers of attorney in favour of other accused. Ritaben has also lodged FIR against the first informant on 20.03.2015. The power of attorney reveals that the same are executed to file appropriate proceedings on their behalf in the Special Civil Suit No.157/11 and further to carry out legal proceedings pertaining to the suit land. One of the power of attorney dated 20.11.2012 reveals that Ritaben and Savitaben are paid Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) towards the cost of proceedings and further it stated that if the proceedings result in their favour, then the power of attorney holders will have 50% share in the property. Thus, merely because the applicant Ritaben and Savitaben, daughters of Shamjibhai have executed power of attorney and settlement deeds with other accused, such an act will not satisfy the requirement of offence of forgery, extortion or cheating. The validity of such documents can always be examined in civil proceedings. 9.3 Now, I shall make an endeavor to examine whether the offence under section 389 of IPC has been made out against the applicants. The validity of such documents can always be examined in civil proceedings. 9.3 Now, I shall make an endeavor to examine whether the offence under section 389 of IPC has been made out against the applicants. SECTION 389 : Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion: Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with imprisonment for life. The reading of the provisions of section 389 reveals the following ingredients: (a) In order to commit extortion, a person is put or an attempt is made to put him in fear of an accusation. (b) Such fear is due to an accusation of an offence or attempt to commit such offence. (c) The offence being punishable with death, imprisonment for life or for a term extending to ten years. 9.4 In the present case, there is no accusation alleged to have been made by the petitioners to the first informant accusing him an offence being punishable with death, imprisonment for life or for a term extending to ten years. The contents of the FIR are blissfully silent on any of the offences which attract the aforenoted punishments. Hence, no offence can be said to have been established under section 389 of IPC. 9.5 In the impugned FIR, the offences under section 418 and 423 of IPC have also been registered against the present applicants. The aforesaid offences fall under sub head of Cheating under Chapter XVII of offences against property. This court is at pains to understand that how an offence of cheating has been made out against the present petitioner. There is no transaction between the first informant and the petitioners. Section 415 postulates the definition of cheating. The aforesaid offences fall under sub head of Cheating under Chapter XVII of offences against property. This court is at pains to understand that how an offence of cheating has been made out against the present petitioner. There is no transaction between the first informant and the petitioners. Section 415 postulates the definition of cheating. The same reads as under: SECTION 415 : Cheating Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Thus, “the delivery of a property” by means of deceiving or fraudulently or dishonestly is sina qua non for encompassing the offence of cheating. In the present case there is no delivery of property and the first informant has not parted with any property which belongs to him due to the alleged acts narrated in the FIR. Hence, no offence under sections 418 and 423 of IPC are established. 9.6 SECTION 477 : Fraudulent cancellation, destruction, etc., of will, authority to adopt, or valuable security Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, cancels, destroys or defaces, or attempts to cancel, destroy or deface, or secretes or attempts to secrete any document which is or purports to be a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or any valuable security, or commits mischief in respect of such documents, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, the quintessential feature for the offence under section 477 is the canceling, destroying or defacing, attempting to cancel, destroy or deface, or secreting or attempts to secrete any document which is or purports to be a will, or any valuable security, or commits mischief in respect of such documents. Thus, the quintessential feature for the offence under section 477 is the canceling, destroying or defacing, attempting to cancel, destroy or deface, or secreting or attempts to secrete any document which is or purports to be a will, or any valuable security, or commits mischief in respect of such documents. Section 30 of IPC defines “valuable security” as a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or where by any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right. 9.7 In the present case, there is no destruction, defacing, attempt to cancel, destroying or defacing, or secreting or attempt to secrete any document of the first informant. The first informant has only alleged that by the purported act of the applicants in executing various powers of attorney and settlement deeds, amounts to an attempt to put his title to the plot of land in jeopardy. The power of attorney and the settlement deeds are executed by the petitioners for carrying out necessary proceedings in relation to the civil suit and further proceedings in relation to the plot of land if the suit is decreed in their favour. Thus, the act of the petitioners in executing power of attorney in favour of other accused and the act of other accused being the beneficiaries to the power of attorney cannot be in any manner said to have committed or attempt to have committed destruction, defacing or secreting the sale deed or title to the land belonging to the first informant. The first informant can file appropriate civil proceedings in this regard or raise his grievance before the civil court in pending suit proceedings. Thus, no offence under section 377 of IPC is made out against the applicants. 9.8 As regards the offence under section 506(2), the same deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance are defined in section 503 of IPC. The intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim by such criminal intimidation. The law is well settled on the issue. Mere expression of words, without any intention to cause alarm, would not encompass the ingredients of section 506 IPC. Criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance are defined in section 503 of IPC. The intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim by such criminal intimidation. The law is well settled on the issue. Mere expression of words, without any intention to cause alarm, would not encompass the ingredients of section 506 IPC. In the present case even it is assumed that the allegations in the FIR are accepted then also if the complaint is read as a whole the ingredients of section 506 IPC are not maintained. Thus, no offence under section 506(2) is also made out in the FIR against the present applicants. 10. As far as Criminal Misc. Application No.10612 of 2016 is concerned, the applicant-accused-Ashwin Parshottambhai Lila is the power of attorney holder of Ritaben. It is alleged that he and Ritaben have also entered in to settlement deed on 07.06.2011 by which they have agreed to sell the land for Rupees Two Crores and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) is also paid to Ritaben. 10.1 In Criminal Misc. Application No.10651 of 2016, applicant-accused Kiran Parshottam Hapaliya, another power of attorney is executed by Ritaben and Savitaben in his name and a settlement deed is executed on 20.11.2012 in which it is mentioned that they have received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) by cheque and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) by cash from one Ashwin and Ramesh Nishit. Further it is recorded in the settlement deed that if any share of the property is effected then they will part with 50% of the same and if any compromise is arrived then they will be paid 50% of the amount. Thus, in both the aforesaid cases no offence as alleged in the FIR or the draft charge sheet is made out against the two applicants. 10.2 In Cri. Misc. Application No.5859/2016, the name of applicant-accused Jatin Hasmukh Pipaliya's does not figure in the FIR. Subsequently in the draft charge sheet, he has been arraigned as an accused. It is stated that he had entered in the settlement deed dated 25.2.2015 with Ritaben for which he had paid Rs.41,51,000/- by cheque and cash. 10.3 In Criminal Misc.Application No. 10140/16, the applicant-accused Babubhai Nanjibhai Bhokhodiya's name does not figure in the charge sheet. Subsequently in the draft charge sheet, he has been arraigned as an accused. It is stated that he had entered in the settlement deed dated 25.2.2015 with Ritaben for which he had paid Rs.41,51,000/- by cheque and cash. 10.3 In Criminal Misc.Application No. 10140/16, the applicant-accused Babubhai Nanjibhai Bhokhodiya's name does not figure in the charge sheet. The role attributed to him in the draft charge sheet is that have helped the other accused in making the documents relating to power of attorney and settlement deed. Thus, even if the allegations are accepted then also no offence under section 385, 389, 418, 423, 477, 506(2), 120B and section 34 are established against both the applicants. 10.4 The upshot of the foregoing analysis and observations is that prima facie, it appears that the offence under section 385 of attempt to commit extortion is said to have been established against Karanbhai Gordhanbhai Solanki and Maganbhai Devabhai Vaghela (applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No.10534/2016). Hence, the investigation shall proceed further for the offence under section 385 against them. No offence as alleged in the FIR and draft charge sheet is said to have been established against the rest of the accused. Necessary report shall be filed in this regard as expeditiously as possible. 11. In light of the foregoing observations, the FIR being No.I-124 of 2016 registered with Gandhigram Police Station, Dist: Rajkot as well as other consequential proceedings arising out of the same FIR are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants-accused of Criminal Misc. Application No.10612 of 2016, Criminal Misc. Application No.10651 of 2016, Criminal Misc. Application No.5859 of 2016, Criminal Misc. Application No.10140 of 2016, Criminal Misc. Application No.9885 of 2016 and Criminal Misc. Application No.10534 of 2016. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Direct service is permitted.