FIR quashed for absence of extortion, trespass and conspiracy ingredients on a plain reading of allegations.

Extortion was not made out because the complaint did not allege delivery of property or valuable security in response to any threat. Criminal trespass was also not established, as the allegations showed a business dispute and a visit connected with claimed dues, not entry with the requisite intent to commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy. No criminal conspiracy was disclosed because the alleged predicate offences were absent and no independent unlawful act was pleaded. The FIR was quashed since the allegations, on a plain reading, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the invoked offences and the criminal process could not continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the FIR disclosed the offence of extortion under the Indian Penal Code; (ii) whether the allegations disclosed criminal trespass under the Indian Penal Code; (iii) whether any case of criminal conspiracy was made out; and (iv) whether the FIR was liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the FIR disclosed the offence of extortion under the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Extortion requires delivery of property or valuable security as a result of the fear or threat induced. The complaint did not allege that any property was delivered to the accused pursuant to the alleged threat. On those facts, the essential ingredients of extortion were absent.

Conclusion: The offence of extortion was not made out.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations disclosed criminal trespass under the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Criminal trespass requires entry with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession. The allegations showed a business dispute and a visit to the premises in connection with claimed dues. On that basis, the necessary intent for criminal trespass was not established.

Conclusion: The offence of criminal trespass was not made out.

Issue (iii): Whether any case of criminal conspiracy was made out.

Analysis: Criminal conspiracy requires an agreement to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Since the alleged offences of extortion and criminal trespass were not disclosed and no other illegal act was alleged, the foundational basis for conspiracy was absent.

Conclusion: No case of criminal conspiracy was made out.

Issue (iv): Whether the FIR was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Where the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, continuation of the criminal process is unwarranted. The FIR was found to be baseless on its face and therefore could not stand.

Conclusion: The FIR was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were terminated because the allegations did not satisfy the legal ingredients of the offences invoked, and the petitioners were entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An FIR may be quashed where, on a plain reading of the allegations, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent and no independent unlawful act is disclosed.

---