[2025:RJ-JP:46928] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3583/2018 1. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar, R/o Village Nagal Khodiya, Tehsil Behror, P.s. Behror, District Alwar (Raj.). 2. Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Basti Ram, R/o Village Budhwal, Tehsil Behror, P.s. Behror, District Alwar (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Raj Singh Assistant Sub Inspector Posted At Police Station Behror, Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 20/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.432/2018 registered at Police Station Behror, District Alwar for committing offence(s) under Sections 384, 386, 387 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 72-A of Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that bare perusal of the contents of FIR would reveal that on account of sending some whatsapp message in whatsapp group namely “Digital D.J. Jai Shree Shyam Keshnath Risky”, the FIR has been lodged and as per FIR itself the message was advisory in nature for remaining conscious on account of any probable incident of riot/firing on account of proposed tour programme of one Okendra [2025:RJ-JP:46928] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3583/2018] Rana from Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to such message, no situation of causing any threat to law and order came to be in existence; and despite that police has registered FIR for committing offences under Sections 384, 386, 387 of IPC and Section 72-A of I.T. Act. Learned counsel further submits that all the offences as prescribed under Sections 384, 386, 387 IPC are relating to different forms of extortion. He further submits that the essential ingredients of extortion are that any person has been intentionally put 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. In the instant case, there is no allegation whatsoever with regard to causing any threat or injury so as to further cause delivery of any property or valuable security. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, offences as alleged against the petitioners relating to IPC are made out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further indicates that Section 72-A of I.T. Act can also be attracted only in such cases, where some information has been revealed by a person in breach of a lawful contract. In the instant case, there is no reference of any contract whatsoever on account of which the petitioners were not supposed to reveal any information, still the police has registered FIR under Section 72-A of I.T. Act. Thus, registration of FIR in the instant case is sheer abuse of process of law and is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are quite specific that the petitioners intended [2025:RJ-JP:46928] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3583/2018] to create a situation of fear amongst the general public, therefore, cognizable offence has been committed by the petitioners. He submits that FIR cannot be treated as an encyclopedia and mere registration of FIR under a particular section would not mean that during investigation, on finding occurrence of any other cognizable offence, Police cannot rectify its earlier mistakes. Hence, under the circumstances, where investigation pursuant to the FIR was pending and could not be concluded on account of stay granted by this Court, learned Public Prosecutor prays for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is clear by bare reading of FIR that it has been registered against the petitioners for extortion under IPC and for releasing certain information in breach of contract. 7. Extortion has been defined in IPC under Section 383 which reads as under :- “383. Extortion.—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”.” 8. Even basic examination of definition of extortion makes it clear that the act of causing threat or fear so as to induce the other person to deliver any property or valuable security is the essential ingredient so as to infer commission of any offence of extortion. In the instant case, in the FIR there is no whisper whatsoever so as to suggest any inducement whatsoever by the petitioners for delivery of any property or valuable security, [2025:RJ-JP:46928] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3583/2018] therefore, even if the contents of FIR are taken at their face value, it cannot be said that any extortion whatsoever has been committed by him. Sections 384, 386 and 387 IPC provides for punishment for causing different kinds of extortion and since, the FIR does not meet the basic requirement of extortion, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for committing offence under Sections 384, 386 and 387 IPC. 9. Section 72A of I.T. Act lays down as under:- “ 2[72A. Punishment for disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract.–Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.]” 10. The basic requirement for committing offence under Section 72A of I.T. Act is that there should be a contract prohibiting disclosure of any information. In the instant case, there is no reference whatsoever in the entire FIR with regard to any contract, nor is there any allegation with regard to breach of contract, therefore, from perusal of contents of FIR itself, no prudent person can make out a case of commission of offence under Section 72A of I.T. Act. 11. Guidelines for interfering in criminal complaint/FIR has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which are as under :- [2025:RJ-JP:46928] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3583/2018] "(102). In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. [2025:RJ-JP:46928] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3583/2018] (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and applying the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the FIR does not disclose commission of offence under Sections 384, 386, 387 of IPC and Section 72A of I.T. Act. Under these circumstances, in case the petitioners are required to undergo prosecution pursuant to impugned FIR, certainly it would be an abuse of process of law, therefore, with a view to secure ends of justice as well as to prevent harassment of the petitioners from undergoing a vexatious trial, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and accordingly FIR No.432/2018 registered at Police Station Behror, District Alwar along with all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. 13. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /36