Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case Under Section 387 IPC | Says Fear Of Death To Extort Money Is Punishable Even Without Actual Delivery
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra has set aside an earlier order of the High Court that quashed criminal proceedings under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court stated that the essential ingredients of the offence had been met and stated that "Section 387 IPC is a heightened, more serious form of the offence of extortion in which the victim is put in fear of death or grievous hurt". The Court restored the complaint proceedings and directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on a specific date.
The Bench held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 387 IPC by importing elements from Section 383 IPC, which includes the requirement of property delivery. The Supreme Court clarified that "the commission of an offence of extortion is not sine qua non for an offence under this Section", and that merely putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to extort is sufficient to attract penal liability under Section 387 IPC. The judgment directed the resumption of trial proceedings and called for expeditious cooperation by all parties.
The instant criminal appeal arose from a judgment and order dated 28 June 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.19550 of 2024. The High Court had quashed a summoning order and the entire proceedings arising from Complaint Case No.58 of 2022 under Section 387 of the IPC.
The complainant, Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal, is the proprietor of a firm named M/s. Balaji Traders, which deals in the trade of betel nut leaves. According to the complaint, one Sanjay Gupta, the accused, started operating under the same trade name. Ongoing litigation existed between the parties concerning trademark and copyright claims.
On 22 May 2022, while the complainant was on his way home, he was allegedly intercepted by the accused along with three unidentified individuals who were armed with rifles. The accused purportedly threatened the complainant to cease his betel nut business unless he paid a monthly sum of five lakhs rupees. When the complainant refused, he was allegedly beaten and an attempted kidnapping followed.
After the police failed to register a First Information Report (FIR), the complainant approached the Court by filing a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoit Prabhav Area), Jalaun at Orai, after examining oral and documentary evidence, found a prima facie case under Section 387 IPC and issued summons to the accused.
The accused, Sanjay Gupta, filed an application before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the summoning order. The High Court, in its judgement, referred to judicial precedents and held that the offence of extortion requires delivery of property or valuable security. Since no such delivery was made in the present case, the High Court held that an offence under Section 387 IPC was not made out and accordingly quashed the proceedings.
The complainant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. It was contended that the High Court erred in applying the principles relevant to Sections 383 and 384 IPC to Section 387 IPC, which pertains to putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt for the purpose of extortion.
The respondent, Sanjay Gupta, argued that there was no actual delivery of property and that the criminal complaint was a counterblast to an FIR he had filed enforcing his intellectual property rights. He also relied on precedents such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal to assert that criminal proceedings should not be used for personal vendetta.
He further cited judgments including Motibhai Fulabhai Patel & Co. v. R. Prasad, Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P., and Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay, stating the strict interpretation required for penal statutes.
The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework under Chapter XVII of the IPC dealing with offences related to extortion. Referring to Section 383 IPC, the Court recorded:
"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... commits extortion."
However, contrasting this with Section 387 IPC, the Court observed:
"Section 387 IPC provides for a stage prior to committing extortion, which is putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt 'in order to commit extortion', similar to Section 385 IPC... Section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of 385 IPC, not 384 IPC."
The Court elaborated on the legal distinction, stating:
"Sections 386 and 388 provide for an aggravated form of extortion... whereas 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."
Referring to R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, the Court delineated the ingredients for extortion under Section 383 IPC but held these were not applicable to Section 387 IPC.
"The commission of an offence of extortion is not sine qua non for an offence under this Section... it is in the process of committing the offence that a person is put in fear of injury, death or grievous hurt."
Quoting precedents, the Court stated: "In Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 387 IPC where money extorted was not paid."
In respect of the High Court’s approach, the Bench recorded: "The reasoning adopted by the High Court is, on the face of it, flawed and misplaced... assigning the essential ingredient of one section to another is not a correct approach."
The Court also invoked the judgement in B.N. John v. State of U.P., reiterating the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. It held that a prima facie case existed under Section 387 IPC and stated: "The allegations of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt would itself make him liable to be prosecuted under Section 387 IPC."
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had adopted an erroneous interpretation of Section 387 IPC. Consequently, it set aside the High Court's quashing order. The Court directed: "With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 28th June, 2024 is set aside, and the proceedings emanating from Complaint Case No.58 of 2022 are restored to the file of the Trial Court."
The Bench further instructed: "Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12th August, 2025. Parties are further directed to fully cooperate and the hearing is expedited."
All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of by the Bench.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR, Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shariq Ahmed, Adv., Mr. Tariq Ahmed, Adv., Mr. Vinay Vats, Adv., Mr. Adnan Yousuf, Adv., M/s. Ahmadi Law Offices, AOR
Case Title: M/s. Balaji Traders v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 806
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3159/2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Manoj Misra
[Read/Download order]
