2015 ALL SCR 3483
(SUPREME COURT)
A. K. PATNAIK AND RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
Isaac Isanga Musumba & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s). 80 of 2013
19th June, 2013.
Petitioner Counsel: Ms. MARALI SINGHAL, Mr. NIKHIL JAIN, Mr. MOHIT A.
Respondent Counsel: Mr. BRAHM S. NAGAR, Mr. K.L. JANJANI, Mr. ARUN PEDNEKAR
(A) Penal Code (1860), Ss.384, 383, 120B - Extortion - Quashing of FIR - Unless property is delivered to accused persons pursuant to the threat - No offence of extortion is made out - FIR quashed. (Para 3)
(B) Penal Code (1860), S.441, 120B - Criminal trespass - Accused persons allegedly entered into the Head Office of the Company and demanded money saying that they have international arrest warrants against complainants and upon failure to pay complainants will have to face dire consequences - There was business transaction between accused persons and complainants - Hence, if accused persons visited premises of complainants to make a demand towards their dues, no case of 'criminal trespass' is made out against the accused persons. (Para 4)
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioners are nationals of Uganda and have filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for quashing of FIR No. 88 of 2013 registered on 19th April, 2013 at MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai in which they have been accused for offences under Sections 384, 441 and 120B, IPC.
3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that the complainants have alleged that the accused persons have shown copies of international warrants issued against the complainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Affairs and the accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent to Rs.110 crores). In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as defined in Section 383, IPC is made out. Section 383, IPC states that 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'. Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and an FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been registered by the police.
4. We also find on the reading of the FIR, there is also an allegation that on 18th April, 2013 between 1 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. the accused persons illegally entered into the Head Office of the Company at Fort and demanded 20 million dollars (equivalent to Rs.110 crores) saying that they have international arrest warrants against the complainants and upon failure to pay the said sum the complainants will have to face dire consequences. It is because of this allegation in the FIR, the offence under Section 441, IPC is alleged to have been committed by the accused persons. On reading Section 441, IPC we find that intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of property is a necessary ingredient of the offence of criminal trespass. It is not disputed that there was a business transaction between the accused persons and the complainants. Hence, if the accused persons have visited the premises of the complainants to make a demand towards their dues, we do not think a case of 'criminal trespass' as defined in Section 441, IPC is made out against the accused persons.
5. Section 120B, IPC will be attracted only if two or more persons agree to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. As the offences under Sections 384 and 441, IPC are not made out, and no other illegal act is alleged in the FIR, no case of criminal conspiracy against the accused persons is also made out.
6. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The word 'person' in Article 21 is wide enough to cover not only citizens of this country but also foreigners who come to this country. The State has an obligation to protect the liberty of such foreigners who come to this country and ensure that their liberty is not deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Notwithstanding the said guaranty under Article 21 of the Constitution, in this case, the Mumbai police acted on the FIR of the complainants, which we have found to be baseless.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the impugned FIR and we further direct that if the passport of any of the petitioners has been impounded on account of the impugned FIR which we have quashed, the same shall be released forthwith.