Karnataka High Court quashes extortion case against RSS activist N Hanumegowda

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) activist N Hanumegowda on allegations of extortion [N Hanumegowda vs State of Karnataka and Anr.].Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that there was no material to indicate that Hanumegowda had put the complainant in fear of injury to commit extortion or to induce him to deliver the money..In the absence of such essential ingredients, the Court opined that the magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the criminal complaint filed under Section 394 (extortion) of the Indian Penal Code.."In the instant case, there is no allegation that the accused has put the defacto complainant in fear of injury intentionally, and thereby induced the defacto complainant to deliver the money to which he has allegedly demanded. In the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of an offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC, the cognizance taken by the learned magistrate is impermissible," the Court said..The case involved allegations that Hanumegowda had demanded money from two individuals who were organizing the inauguration ceremony of a building. Hanumegowda was accused of questioning the validity of requisite permission for the building, and he also allegedlydemanded ₹2 lakh. Further, the complainant alleged that Hanumegowda had threatened to disrupt the inauguration event by preventing the attendance of the Chief Minister and other important guests if he was not paid the money. .After a magistrate took cognizance of the first information report (FIR) filed by the complainant, Hanumegowda moved the High Court to quash the case..His counsel contended that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted, they did not constitute an offence under Section 384 since there was no allegation that the complainant had parted with any money.He also argued that there was no allegation that he put the complainant in fear of delivering the money that was allegedly demanded..On the other hand, counsel for the complainant contended that parting with the money was not an essential ingredient for the offence of extortion under Section 384. It would suffice if a person was put into fear to induce them to part with the money, he argued..Alternatively, he contended that the allegations in the FIR disclosed the commission of the offence under Section 385 (putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion) of the IPC..The Court noted that to constitute an offence under Section 385 IPC, putting one in fear of injury was an essential ingredient. However, the Court found that no material was placed to demonstrate that the Hanumegowda had put the complainant in fear. Hence, the Court concluded that the criminal proceedings against him would be an abuse of the process of law..Therefore, the Court allowed the petition by Hanumegowda and quashed the proceedings initiated against him..Advocate GR Mohan appeared for the Hanumegowda. Government Pleader Vinayaka VS appeared for the State. Advocate D Prabhakar appeared for the complainant..[Read Order]