INTRODUCTION
In a landmark declaration on extortion, it is thus held by the Supreme Court of India that, under Section 387 of the IPC, a person is put in fear of death or grievous hurt to commit extortion. It does not require actual delivery of property or realization of gain. The fall in view of the Court brings home the point that even mere issuance of threats that induce any sort of fear constitutes the offence under this Section, thereby synching its focus on psychological coercion as against material outcome.
BACKGROUND
This case arose in appeal, challenging the framing of two charges for an offence of extortion punishable under Section 387 IPC, wherein the accused is alleged to have threatened the complainant with some dire consequences if money was not paid. The defense argued that since no actual receipt of money took place, the ingredients of extortion punishable under Section 387 were not constituted.
The trial court had framed charges, which were later upheld by the High Court. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which took up the question of whether the absence of actual extortion nullifies the offence under Section 387 IPC.
KEY POINTS
No Requirement of Actual Delivery or Gain:
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 387 does not necessitate that the threatened person must part with money or property. The offence is complete the moment a person is intentionally put in fear of death or grievous hurt with the purpose of committing extortion.
Emphasis on Threat and Intention:
The Bench emphasized that the legal threshold is the creation of fear through threats and the presence of intent to extort. Whether the intended outcome occurs is irrelevant to the offence’s completion.
Psychological Pressure is Sufficient:
The ruling affirms that coercive tactics aimed at psychological pressure, even if not materially successful, fall squarely within the ambit of Section 387 IPC. The Court stated that any other interpretation would dilute the preventive purpose of the law.
Judicial Discretion and Framing of Charges:
The Court also upheld the discretionary power of trial courts in framing charges based on prima facie material. It warned against premature interference unless there is a clear abuse of process or manifest illegality.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal on June 10, 2025 and affirmed the continuance of trial under Section 387 IPC.The judgment, delivered by a two-judge bench, noted:
“The gravamen of Section 387 lies in the creation of fear, not in the actual act of extortion. The offence begins with the threat, not with the gain.”
The ruling is expected to have significant implications for cases involving intimidation and coercion where actual monetary transfer does not occur, but fear is clearly instilled.
CONCLUSION
This decision by the Supreme Court marks a pivotal affirmation of the legal interpretation surrounding extortion and threats under the IPC. By prioritizing the mens rea and psychological impact above the material outcome, the Court reaffirms the deterrent function of the criminal law. The ruling sends a clear message that threats, though not “successful,” are prosecutable, keeping the law in swift motion to be applied against coercive behavior designed to intimidate the public and take advantage of the private.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY HARINI S
