Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR No. 121/2018 registered at Police Station Chhoti Sadri, Pratapgarh for the offence under Sections 383, 385, 506 of the IPC. 2. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR are that complainant Ganesh Lal lodged the FIR for the allegations that the petitioner used to harass him and mount pressure to deliver illegal amount or donations to him, or else he would publish news in the newspaper about his corrupt practice and then would make the news viral on social media. The FIR also has a recital about sending a complaint by the petitioner to the Registrar, Board of Revenue Board, Rajasthan, Chief Minister of Rajasthan and copies of which were sent to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, IG of Anti- Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, having false allegations of his corrupt practice. 2.1 Based upon the aforementioned allegations, the investigation is being carried by the police. Hence, the Misc.Petition. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter. 4. After perusing the material available on record, it is necessary to first discuss the provision of extortion and how it is defined under IPC. For ready reference, Section 383 of the IPC is reproduced herein below:- “383. Extortion.— Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces 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, commits “extortion”. Illustrations (a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion. (b). A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has committed extortion. (c). A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion. A has committed extortion. (c). A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion. (d) by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.” A bare perusal of Section 383 of the IPC reveals that, for the offence of extortion to be made out, there must be an intention on the part of the accused to put another person in fear of injury, and as a result of such fear, the person so threatened must be dishonestly induced to deliver any property or valuable security. In the present case, it is evident from plain reading of the FIR itself that the offence of extortion is not made out, as the allegations indicate a mere threat and there is no allegation or evidence to suggest that the complainant delivered any property or valuable security to the petitioner. 5. Section 384 IPC is punishment for extortion as per which whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or both. 6. Section 385 of the IPC is regarding putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. For ready reference, Section 385 of the IPC is reproduced herein below:- Section 385- Putting a 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. 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. This provision envisages that whoever, in order to commit extortion, puts any person in fear or make an attempt to put any person in fear of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fines or both and the same is cognizable and valuable and triable by any Magistrate. This provision is non-compoundable. 7. In the present case, no offence of extortion is made out, as the allegations pertain only to a threat, with no delivery of money or property by the complainant to the petitioner. This is apparent from a plain reading of the FIR. 8. In the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2014) 15 SCC 357 Hon’ble the Supreme Court has expounded that unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and therefore an FIR for the offence under Section 384 IPC could not have been registered by the police. 9. Here, in this case, at the best, it can be said that it's an attempt to commit an offence of extortion without rebutting or assessing the allegation of the victim. It is emerging from the record that the petitioner put the victim in fear in order to commit an extortion, but since nothing was delivered, the offence has not been completed. 10. In view of the above, the instant Misc. Petition is allowed in part. The incorporation of Section 384 of the IPC in the FIR No.121/2018 registered at P.S. Chhoti Sadri, District Sanchore is quashed and set-aside; the investigation can be continued in relation to the commission of offence under Sections 385 & 506 of the IPC. 11. Nothing would preclude the petitioner to agitate the issue at a later stage with regard to the genuineness of the allegations. Since both the offences are bailable, therefore, the petitioner should not be arrested in connection with FIR No.121/2018 Police Station Chhoti Sadri, District Sanchore. 12. The stay petition stands disposed of.