FIR for extortion and criminal intimidation quashed where ownership, inducement, and intent to cause alarm were unsubstantiated.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR C.R. No. I-28 of 2016 registered at Ranavav Police Station, Porbandar, for offences under Sections 385, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the consequential proceedings.

The complainant, stated to be serving as a chowkidar in Ranavav Nagarpalika, alleged that on 25 April 2016 petitioner Dhirubhai, accompanied by other persons, removed 15 boxes of toilet and bathroom tiles from a godown/open ground.

When the complainant objected, Dhirubhai allegedly threatened to kill him and took away the tiles valued at approximately ₹3,000.

The petitioners alleged political vendetta and contended that the construction material belonged to a contractor, who was responsible for its custody; they also relied on a contractor’s certificate stating that the construction work had stopped and that no tiles were lying at the site.

During investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet and prepared a panchnama concerning recovery of 15 packets of tiles.

The complainant did not appear despite service of notice.

Whether the allegations and investigation materials disclosed the ingredients of extortion under Section 385 IPC, particularly putting the complainant in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Whether the allegations disclosed criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506(2) IPC, including an intention to cause alarm or compel the complainant to do or omit an act.

Whether continuation of the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law where the allegations and investigation materials do not prima facie establish the alleged offences.

Section 385 IPC applies where a person is put in fear of injury with the object of dishonestly inducing that person to deliver property; the prosecution must therefore show both the requisite threat or fear and a dishonest inducement to part with identifiable property.

Criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 IPC requires a threat of injury to person, reputation or property, accompanied by the intention to cause alarm or to compel the threatened person to perform or omit an act.

Section 114 IPC concerns abetment by a person present when the offence is committed; however, liability under that provision cannot survive independently where the principal offences are not prima facie made out.

The Court found no material demonstrating that the complainant was intentionally put in fear of injury so as to dishonestly induce him to deliver the tiles.

The investigation did not establish ownership of the 15 boxes, whether they belonged to the Nagarpalika or the contractor, or that the complainant had responsibility for their custody.

The contractor’s certificate supported the petitioners’ contention that the work had stopped and that tiles were not lying at the premises.

The alleged recovery also did not materially advance the prosecution case because the tiles were produced before the investigating agency by the petitioner, rather than recovered from his residence or conscious possession pursuant to a discovery.

As to criminal intimidation, the Court held that the allegation of threat was vague, unsupported by cogent prima facie material, and based only on a single hearsay witness.

There was also no material showing an intention to cause alarm or that the complainant was legally entitled to restrain the petitioners from removing the tiles, particularly when neither the Nagarpalika nor the contractor claimed ownership.

Consequently, continuation of the prosecution was considered an abuse of process.

The FIR, C.R. No. I-28 of 2016 registered at Ranavav Police Station, Porbandar, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.

The petition was allowed and the Rule was made absolute to that extent.