The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has quashed the criminal proceedings, including the charge sheet and summoning order, against the office bearers of a Resident Welfare Association (RWA) who were accused of extortion and criminal intimidation for enforcing parking rules within the society.
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia, while allowing an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observed that the imposition of a penalty for wrong parking by a duly elected RWA cannot be termed as ‘extortion’. The Court also came down heavily on the informant for misusing his membership in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to browbeat the RWA members.
Case Background
The case pertains to the ‘Celebrity Greens’ society in Lucknow. The applicants—Kamalesh Agnihotri (Secretary), the President, and the Caretaker of the society—approached the High Court challenging the Charge Sheet dated July 25, 2025, and the subsequent summoning order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. They were facing charges under Sections 308(2) (Extortion), 351(2) (Criminal Intimidation), and 352 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the applicants, the society is governed by the U.P. Apartment Act. In a board meeting held on November 24, 2024, the RWA passed a resolution to regulate haphazard parking. The guidelines stipulated that residents would be allotted specific slots. Non-compliance would result in advice at the first instance, a warning at the second, and locking of the vehicle with a penalty of Rs. 500/- at the third instance.
The Opposite Party No. 2 (the informant), a resident of the society, lodged an FIR alleging that the applicants had formed a gang and were extorting money from residents. The informant specifically mentioned in the FIR that he was a trustee of the ‘Bhavrao Devras Trust’ of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). He alleged that he was threatened on May 1st for a penalty of Rs. 500/- and that the RWA was recovering money without sanction.
Arguments
The counsel for the applicants, Shri Mohit Mishra, submitted that the RWA is a registered body and the parking guidelines were a welfare measure to avoid traffic obstruction. It was argued that the proceedings were malicious and initiated by the informant to “browbeat” the elected members by leveraging his social status and membership in the RSS trust.
The counsel for the informant, Dr. L.P. Mishra, opposed the plea, arguing that the RWA management was a “kleptocracy” and “tyranny.” In a counter-affidavit, the informant stated that he and his family felt “small, pipsqueak” against the “egregious, bellicose orders” of the RWA. He alleged that his car tyre was jammed, and a demand for money was made, which compelled him to file the FIR as a last resort against the “mafia-like” RWA.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Pankaj Bhatia examined the definition of Extortion under Section 308 of the BNS and Criminal Intimidation under Section 351 of the BNS.
1. No Offence of Extortion or Intimidation Made Out: The Court observed that even if the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet were accepted as true, they did not constitute the alleged offences. The Court noted that there was no allegation that the applicants intentionally put any person in fear of injury to deliver property.
“No material exists that the applicants intentionally put the informant or any other residents in fear of any injury or any effort was made to dishonestly induce any resident or the informant to deliver to any person any property or any security. No amount was extracted or taken from the informant,” the Court held.
The Court ruled that the decision to levy a penalty was taken based on a resolution passed by the general body of the RWA and “could in no way be termed as ‘extortion’ as has been alleged and averred.”
2. “Half-Baked” Investigation: The Court severely criticized the Investigating Officer, Mr. Shiv Kant Tiwari, for conducting a “half-baked” investigation. The Court noted that the IO failed to record the statements of other residents or verify the RWA’s bye-laws and resolutions.
“The investigation is clearly half baked and appears to be under the influence of the office said to be held by Opposite Party No.2,” the Court remarked.
The Court directed that a copy of the order be placed in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the Investigating Officer and sent to the Director General of Police (DGP) to decide whether he should be entrusted with future investigations.
3. Misuse of RSS Membership: The Court expressed strong disapproval of the informant’s conduct in using the name of the RSS in the FIR.
“‘With great powers come great responsibility’. The Opposite Party No.2 has clearly not gained responsibilities with the great powers that have come his way as claimed by him,” Justice Bhatia observed.
The Court further stated:
“Prima-facie, a highly disciplined and respected cultural organization like the RSS has been maligned and the membership has been misused in the present case by Opposite Party No.2… this Court is not well equipped to go any further with regard to the acts of Opposite Party No.2 in misusing the name of a respected cultural organisation in the manner in which it has been done.”
Decision
The High Court held that the FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order were “nothing but an abuse of process of law at the instance of a disgruntled resident against the duly elected members of the RWA.”
Consequently, the Court quashed the entire proceedings of Case No. 115214 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 392 of 2025.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Kamalesh Agnihotri @ Kamal And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another
- Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 1980 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Bhatia
- Counsel for Applicants: Shailendra Kumar Singh, Mohit Mishra, Suneel Kumar
- Counsel for Opposite Parties: G.A., Sriniwas Bajpai, Viny Prakash Tiwari, Shanker Lal Pandey, Dr. L.P. Mishra, Abhay Shukla
