NEW DELHI: Can a person be prosecuted for extortion when the allegations do not show that an offence was committed? The Patna high court has quashed a criminal case, holding that the allegations did not make out an extortion charge and that the prosecution was malicious. The court said criminal law cannot be used to settle personal scores and set aside the magistrate’s order summoning the accused in its October 15, 2026, ruling.
Why was the case brought before the high court?
According to the court order, the complaint was filed in October 2022, following which an FIR was registered at Kadamkuan police station in Patna in May 2023. The FIR invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.The police later filed a closure report, stating that the case was untrue. On December 16, 2024, the magistrate accepted the report but treated a protest petition filed by the complainant as a complaint. On May 5, 2025, the magistrate summoned the accused to face trial for alleged extortion under Section 384 of the IPC.The accused challenged the summoning order in the high court. His lawyer argued that the allegations were false and said the accused was in Mumbai for the nomination process of the Board of Control for Cricket in India at the time. The lawyer also pointed out that the accused was then president of the Bihar Cricket Association.The complainant, meanwhile, argued that the magistrate’s order should have been challenged through a separate application after the police closure report was accepted.
Why did the high court quash the case?
Justice Soni Shrivastava first examined whether the accused could challenge the summoning order in the pending proceedings. It said a separate application would normally be appropriate, but decided to hear the matter to avoid further delay and multiple proceedings.The complaint alleged that the accused had instructed Delhi Police to enter the complainant’s husband’s office, ransack it and take away articles. The police were investigating another case in Delhi. The court noted that the accused was not present at the office during the alleged incident. It also pointed out that the complaint did not mention the dates or times of some alleged threats.The court held that the allegations did not make out a case of extortion under Section 384 of the IPC.“By no stretch of imagination any offence under Section 384 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner, the essential ingredients of which would be intentionally putting any person in fear of any injury to that person, and thereby dishonestly inducing him to deliver any property or valuable security,” the court observed.The court also noted that Section 384 had not been mentioned in the original complaint or the FIR. It questioned the basis on which the magistrate had summoned the accused without establishing that the allegations disclosed an offence.The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s view that summoning an accused is a serious step and cannot be done as a matter of course.“Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course,” the Supreme Court had observed.The high court further found that the accused had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, as required under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). A report from the magistrate’s court confirmed that no notice had been issued or served before the order was passed.The court said the complaint also appeared to be linked to the complainant’s husband’s concerns about a separate Delhi police case. It observed that criminal proceedings could not be used to settle personal scores and described the prosecution as “not only frivolous on facts, but also malicious and vexatious.”Holding that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the legal process, the high court quashed the criminal proceedings, including the magistrate’s May 5, 2025, order summoning the accused for alleged extortion.