Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shariq Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Tariq Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Vinay Vats, Adv. Mr. Adnan Yousuf, Adv. M/S. Ahmadi Law Offices, AOR

Key Points from the Judgment

1. Section 387 IPC Offence Independent of Completed Extortion: Commission of the offence of extortion under Section 383 IPC is not a prerequisite (sine qua non) for an offence under Section 387 IPC. Prosecution under Section 387 IPC does not require delivery of property or valuable security by the victim. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

2. Ingredients of Section 387 IPC: The essential ingredients are (a) putting or attempting to put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt to that person or another; and (b) doing so in order to commit extortion. Allegations satisfying these prima facie disclose the offence, making the accused liable for prosecution. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

3. Distinction Between Extortion Sections: Sections 384, 386, and 388 IPC punish completed extortion (actual delivery of property under fear). Sections 385, 387, and 389 IPC punish the preparatory act of putting a person in fear to commit extortion, even if extortion is incomplete. Section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of Section 385 IPC, criminalizing the process prior to extortion. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

4. Ingredients of Section 383 IPC (Extortion): (i) intentionally putting a person in fear of injury; (ii) thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property, valuable security, or signed/sealed document convertible to valuable security. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

5. Strict Interpretation of Penal Statutes: Penal provisions, including Section 387 IPC, must be strictly construed. Courts cannot read additional ingredients or conditions into the statute, extend its scope by implying words not present, or import elements from related sections. Absent clear language, no wider interpretation imposing liability is permissible. Lean towards construction exempting from penalty if two reasonable interpretations exist. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

6. High Court's Error in Quashing: High Court wrongly required delivery of property (ingredient of Section 383/384 IPC) for Section 387 IPC, conflating distinct offences with separate ingredients and punishments. Case distinguishable where Section 384 IPC alleged, not 387 IPC. Quashing flawed as complaint disclosed prima facie ingredients under Section 387 IPC: fear of death by pointing gun and demand for Rs. 5 lakhs. (!) (!) (!) (!)

7. Principles for Quashing under Section 482 CrPC: Power exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice. Relevant categories include: allegations not prima facie disclosing offence; absurd/improbable claims; mala fide proceedings. At quashing stage, only assess if allegations disclose cognizable offence; do not evaluate merits or evidence. Here, not applicable as ingredients prima facie met. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

8. Facts of the Case: Complainant (proprietor of M/s. Balaji Traders) threatened by accused (running similar business amid trademark litigation) and others with rifles/guns: stop business or pay Rs. 5 lakhs monthly; beaten and kidnapping attempt on refusal. Police refused FIR; private complaint under Section 200 CrPC led to summoning order under Section 387 IPC, quashed by High Court, restored by Supreme Court. No counterblast as allegations independent. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

9. Outcome: Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; Complaint Case No. 58/2022 under Section 387 IPC restored to Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Jalaun at Orai). Parties to appear on 12.08.2025; expedite hearing and cooperate. (!) (!)