Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
M/s. Balaji Traders – Appellant
Versus
The State Of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 3159 of 2025)
Decided on : 05-06-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 387 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Extortion – Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court – Commission of offence of extortion is not sine qua non for an offence under this Section – For prosecution under Section 387 IPC, delivery of property is not necessary – Section 387 IPC, being a penal provision, has to be strictly interpreted and no condition/essential ingredient can be read into it that Statute/Section does not prescribe – Reasoning adopted by High Court is, on face of it, flawed and misplaced – When Legislature has created two separate offences with distinct ingredients and punishments, then assigning essential ingredient of one to another is not a correct approach adopted by High Court – Putting a person in fear would make accused guilty of an offence under Section 387 IPC; it need not satisfy all ingredients of extortion provided under Section 383 IPC – Instant case is not fit for quashing as two essential ingredients for prosecution under Section 387 IPC, have been prima facie disclosed in complaint, (a) that complainant has been put in fear of death by pointing a gun towards him; and (b) that it was done to pressurize him to deliver Rs.5 lakhs – Allegations of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt would itself make him liable to be prosecuted under Section 387 IPC – Allegation of criminal case being a counterblast is negated – Impugned order set aside and criminal proceedings restored to file of Trial Court. (Paras 14, 24, 25, 26 and 27)
(B) Interpretation of Statute – Penal Statute – Penal statutes must be given strict interpretation – Court ought not to read anything into a statutory provision that imposes penal liability – In absence of clear, compelling language, provision should not be given a wider interpretation – Scope of provision cannot be extended by reading into it words which are not there. (Paras 19, 22 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal, preferred by appellant-complainant, arises out of judgment and order dated 28th June, 2024 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.19550/2024 whereby summoning order dated 28th August, 2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.58 of 2022 under Section 387 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been quashed.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order dated 28th June, 2024 is set aside, and proceedings emanating from Complaint Case No.58 of 2022 are restored to file of Trial Court. Parties are directed to appear before Trial Court on 12th August, 2025. Parties are further directed to fully cooperate and the hearing is expedited.
Result : Appeal allowed.
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. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
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. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
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. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
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. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
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. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
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. (!) (!) (!) (!)
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. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
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. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
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. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
1. The instant appeal, preferred by appellant-complainant, arises out of the judgment and order dated 28th June, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.19550/2024 whereby the summoning order dated 28th August, 2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.58 of 2022 under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601[Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] has been quashed.
2. Brief facts that led to the present appeal are :
The complainant, namely, Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal, is a proprietor of a firm M/s. Balaji Traders, carrying out the business of betel nut leaves. Sanjay Gupta2[Hereinafter ‘accused’], allegedly started a business under the same name, and litigations are pending between the parties with respect to Trademark and Copyright claims. On 22nd May, 2022, when the complainant was heading towards his house, the accused, along with three unknown persons carrying rifles in their hands, stopped and threatened him to close down his business of betel nut. They further threatened that he could carry on the business only if he would pay five lakhs per month to the accused person. On the complainant's refusal, the accused persons not only beat him but also tried to kidnap him. On failure of police to register First Information Report3[FIR], he approached the Court by filing a complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734[Hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’].
3. Pursuant to this complaint, the Trial Court5[Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(Dacoit Prabhav Area) Jalaun Place Orai] after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available, found a prima facie case against the accused person and issued summons to him u/s 387 IPC.
4. Being aggrieved, the accused person approached the High Court by filing a Miscellaneous Application under section 482 CrPC for quashing of summoning order dated 28th August, 2023.
5. The High Court, while referring to various judicial pronouncements, observed that to make out a case of extortion, one of the essential ingredients is to deliver any property or valuable security under threat by the complainant to the accused; and that such ingredient was missing in the instant case as no money was handed over to the accused person. It further observed that since no offence of extortion under Section 383 IPC is made out, consequently, no offence under Section 387 IPC would be made out, thus, finding it a fit case to be quashed.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court rightly issued summons on the basis of the statements of witnesses and the complainant, and the High Court wrongly relied on the judgments dealing with 384 IPC and not 387 IPC.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2, while relying on submits that since the essential ingredient of extortion, i.e., delivery of property, is not met, consequently, the charge under Section 387 IPC cannot be sustained. Respondent No.2, who is running a similar business to that of the complainant, had lodged an FIR against the complainant, as such the instant FIR is directly linked to the respondent's enforcement of his Intellectual Property Rights and made as a counterblast to the respondent's lawful actions. Further reliance is 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, submitting that criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment, or for seeking personal vendetta with an ulterior motive of pressurizing the accused. Further, placing reliance on Motibhai Fulabhai Patel & Co. v. R. Prasad, 1968 SCC OnLine SC310 ; Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P., (1976) 1 SCC 560; and Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay, (1954) 1 SCC 961, it is submitted that since penal statutes have to be construed and interpreted strictly, section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of extortion and cannot be stretch
(1) Extortion – Commission of offence of extortion is not sine qua non for offence under Section 387, IPC – For prosecution under Section 387, IPC, delivery of property is not necessary – Section 387....
The essential elements of extortion require an actual delivery of property under threat, which must be established for a charge under Section 387 IPC to be valid.
The essential ingredients for offences of extortion, criminal intimidation, and criminal breach of trust must be clearly established, and failure to do so warrants quashing of proceedings under Secti....
For extortion under IPC, there must be an intention to induce delivery of property due to fear; mere threats without delivery do not constitute the offence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge sheet and framing of charges must be justified based on the facts and legal interpretations provided by the Apex Court and other ju....
The court established that allegations in the FIR did not constitute extortion or criminal intimidation, emphasizing the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences.
Extortion can be established through threats alone without the delivery of property, and non-cooperation with investigation negates the entitlement to bail.
The prosecution must prove essential elements of criminal offences beyond reasonable doubt; mere abuse does not suffice for caste-based violations under the SC/ST Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
