IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.28458 of 2008
GOPAL PRASAD SINGH, SON OF MAHENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
CHAMPAPUR, POST BAKHTIYARPUR, P.S. BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA AT
PRESENT POSTED AS BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BAIRGANIA,
DISTRICT SITAMARHI. ----- PETITIONER
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPPOSITE PARTY
For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate
Mr. Suman Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.
-----------
2 21.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated
30.12.2006 by which cognizance has been taken against the
petitioner for the offences under Section 384 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Briefly stated the prosecution case as made out in the
complaint petition by a teacher of a school is that some
construction work was to be done for the school. The complainant
began to undertake the construction of the two toilets etc. The
money for the work was withdrawn by joint signature of the
Principal of the school and the Secretary of the Education
Committee. It has been alleged by the complainant that the
Secretary of the Education Committee as well as the Principal
demanded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- for passing the said bills. The
complainant is said to have made a complaint to the Block
Education Extension Officer, Bairgania, Sitamarhi (Petitioner) and
the Officer Incharge of Bairgania. On the basis of the aforesaid
2
facts, the petitioner who is the Block Education Extension Officer
has been made accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out
against the petitioner. Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code deals
with extortion which envisages that if a person 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”. It would apparent from the definition of the offence
that the petitioner had neither demanded any money nor had he
threatened or put the complainant in any fear or in fact had any
interaction with the complainant and as such the offence under
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against this
petitioner.
In the result, I quash the order of cognizance dated
30.12.2006, passed in Complaint Case No. C-I/1286/06 giving rise
to Trial No. 2058 of 2006.
This application is allowed.
Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)