Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 5 June 2025, allowed the criminal appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3159 of 2025, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 28 June 2024, which had quashed the summoning order and entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 under Section 387 IPC.
The Court held that the High Court had misapplied the law by equating the offence under Section 387 IPC with the essential elements of Section 383 IPC (extortion), particularly the requirement of actual delivery of property or money. It clarified:
“Putting a person in fear would make an accused guilty of an offence under Section 387 IPC; it need not satisfy all the ingredients of extortion provided under Section 383 IPC.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial proceedings before the competent court. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12 August 2025, and the matter was ordered to be expedited.
Facts
The complainant, a sole proprietor of the business “Balaji Traders” dealing in betel nut leaves, alleged that the accused, who also operated a business under the same name, intercepted him along with three armed individuals while he was on his way home on 22 May 2022. The accused allegedly threatened the complainant to shut down his business unless he paid ₹5 lakhs per month to continue operating. On his refusal, he was assaulted and an attempt was made to kidnap him.
Despite these allegations, the local police refused to register an FIR. Consequently, the complainant approached the court by filing a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC. The Trial Court, upon perusal of evidence and witness statements, found a prima facie case and issued a summoning order against the accused under Section 387 IPC.
The accused then approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning order. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings on the ground that the element of delivery of property—an essential ingredient of extortion—was missing.
Issues
- Whether the delivery of property or money is a necessary condition to attract Section 387 IPC?
- Whether the High Court was justified in invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the summoning order and complaint proceedings?
Petitioner’s Arguments
It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that the Trial Court had correctly summoned the accused under Section 387 IPC based on a prima facie case arising from the statements and material on record. The counsel argued that the High Court erred by relying on judgments relating to Section 384 IPC, which deals with completed extortion, instead of considering the correct legal position under Section 387 IPC, which criminalizes the act of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt with the intention to extort—regardless of whether the extortion was actually completed.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent contended that the offence of extortion was not made out as the complainant had not delivered any money or property. Placing reliance on Dhananjay @ Dhandhanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2007) 14 SCC 768, it was argued that the absence of delivery negated the offence under Section 387 IPC. It was also argued that the complaint was a retaliatory move and a counterblast to an earlier FIR filed by the respondent against the complainant for violation of intellectual property rights. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1 to argue that criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or private vendetta.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code dealing with extortion and its various forms:
- Section 383 defines extortion and requires dishonest inducement to deliver property under fear.
- Section 384 prescribes punishment for extortion.
- Section 385 to 389 deal with attempts or acts done in order to commit extortion, which do not necessarily require actual delivery of property.
The Court emphasized:
“Sections 385, 387 and 389 IPC seek to punish for an act committed for the purpose of extortion even though the act of extortion may not be complete and property not delivered.”
Section 387 IPC punishes the act of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion. The term “in order to” was interpreted to mean “for the purpose of”, implying that even preparatory acts done with such intent are punishable.
Precedent Analysis
The Court discussed and distinguished several authorities:
- R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1986) 2 SCC 716: Laid down the four ingredients of Section 383 IPC.
- Radha Ballabh v. State of U.P. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 119: Held that demand for ransom without actual payment falls under Section 387 IPC, not Section 386 IPC.
- Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) 10 SCC 190: Upheld conviction under Section 387 IPC without proof of payment.
- Somasundaram v. State (2020) 7 SCC 722: Conviction upheld where threats were made to extract property, even though delivery did not occur.
- Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay (1954) 1 SCC 961: Reiterated strict construction of penal statutes.
- Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. (1976) 1 SCC 560: Penal provisions must be construed strictly and not expansively.
- B.N. John v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7: Reiterated Bhajan Lal guidelines for quashing.
- Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401: FIR quashing should be the exception and not the norm.
- Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2007) 14 SCC 768: Relied upon by the High Court but distinguished by the Supreme Court as it involved Section 384 IPC, not 387 IPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly applied the legal framework for Section 383 IPC, which requires actual delivery of property. Section 387 IPC does not require such delivery and only requires that a person be put in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion. The ingredients of Section 387 IPC were clearly made out on a prima facie reading of the complaint.
The Court observed:
“Nowhere does the Section say that extortion has to be committed while putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. Instead, it is the other way around…”
It concluded that the complaint disclosed the essential elements of Section 387 IPC:
- That the complainant was put in fear of death by pointing guns at him;
- That such threat was made to pressurize him into paying ₹5 lakhs per month.
The High Court’s focus on the lack of actual delivery of money was therefore misplaced and legally incorrect.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 28 June 2024, and restored the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 before the Trial Court. The Court directed the parties to appear on 12 August 2025 and instructed that the trial be conducted expeditiously.
Implications
This judgment firmly establishes that:
- Section 387 IPC criminalizes preparatory acts to extort, especially when accompanied by threats of death or grievous harm.
- The actual delivery of property is not a condition precedent for prosecution under Section 387 IPC.
- The ruling serves as a caution against premature quashing of criminal proceedings based on misinterpretation of statutory provisions.
It also reiterates the principle that penal statutes must be interpreted strictly and should not be diluted by equating distinct offences.
