Extortion - The Legal Chamber

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case

26Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case

In this judgment, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellants based on the principle of parity. Since co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted relief under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court—a decision which had attained finality—the Court held the same benefit must extend to the appellants. Facts Of The Case: Vasanthi, sister of respondent No. 2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs from appellant No. 2 (accused No. 5). As security for the said loan, Vasanthi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of appellant No. 1 (accused No. 4) concerning a property measuring 1980 sq. ft. situated at Villanur Revenue Village. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of h...

Mens Rea is Must: Supreme Court Rules Accused Must Intend to Drive Victim to Suicide for Abetment Charge

The Supreme Court reiterated that to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of mens rea and a proximate act of instigation by the accused, which directly led the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without positive action intended to push the victim toward suicide, are insufficient to sustain the charge. The absence of a live link between the alleged acts and the suicide warranted quashing of the FIR. Facts Of The Case: A seven-term independent Member of Parliament committed suicide on 22 February 2021, leaving behind a suicide note. In the note, he named several officials from the administration and police of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, accusing them of conspiring to defame, degrade, and demean him to end his political caree...

Supreme Court :Threats Alone Can Constitute Extortion “No Need for Money Exchange”| Section 387 IPC

The Supreme Court of India ruled that for a prosecution under Section 387 IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary, as this section punishes the act of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt "in order to commit extortion," which is a stage prior to the actual commission of extortion. The High Court's quashing order was set aside because it wrongly emphasized the non-delivery of money, which is not an essential ingredient for an offense under Section 387 IPC. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal filed by M/s. Balaji Traders (appellant-complainant) against a High Court judgment dated June 28, 2024, which quashed a summoning order and proceedings in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant, Prof. Manoj Kumar ...