2013 INSC 0503
 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
        Isaac Isanga Musumba
                    Vs.
         State Of Maharashtra
        (2013) 7 SCALE 0569

(A.K. Patnaik and Ranjan Gogoi JJ.)
               19.06.2013

            JUDGEMENT

A.K. Patnaik, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners are nationals of Uganda and have filed this Writ Petition under Art.32 of the
Constitution praying for quashing of F.I.R. No. 88 of 2013 registered on 19th April, 2013 at
WRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai in which they have been accused for offences under
Sections 384, 441 and 120B, I.P.C. We have read the F.I.R. which has been annexed to the
Writ Petition as Annexure P-7 and we find there from 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
S.383, I.P.C. is made out. S.383, I.P.C. 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 F.I.R. for the offence under S.384 could not have been registered by the
police.

3. We also find on the reading of the F.I.R., 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

1                                    SpotLaw
to pay the said sum the complainants will have to face dire consequences. , It is because of
this allegation in the F.I.R., the offence under S.441, I.P.C. is alleged to have been committed
by the accused persons. On reading S.441, I.P.C. 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 S.441, 1.P.C. is made out against the accused
persons.

2  SpotLaw