Case Name: M/S Balaji Traders Vs. The State of U. P. & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3159/2025)
Date of Judgment: 05 June 2025
Quorum: Justice Sanjay Karol
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The current criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant contesting the judgement and order dated 28th June, 2024 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Criminal M A No. 19550/2024 whereby the summoning order dated 28th August, 2023 as well as entire proceedings of complaint case No. 58 or 2022 under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been quashed.
The appellant complainant is a proprietor of a firm M/s. Balaji Traders, carrying out the betel nut leaves. Respondent no.2, Mr. Sanjay Gupta, allegedly started a business under the same name. This was ensued by a chain of legal proceedings between the parties with respect to trademark and copyright claims, which remain pending. On 22nd May 2022, the appellant was stopped and threatened on his way home, by the accused accompanied by three unknown persons carrying rifles in their hands. The complainant was threatened with the warning that he could carry on hi business only he paid 5 lakhs per month to the accused person. On refusal, the complainant was beaten by the accused, who subsequently tried to kidnap him.
The Police failed to register the First Information Report, aggrieved by which the accused filed a complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the trial court. The court found a prima facie case against the accused and issued summons to him u/s 387 IPC, on 28th August 2023. The accused approached this hon’ble court, against this summons, by filing a Miscellaneous Application u/s 482 CrPC.
Considering the matter in reference to various judicial pronouncements, the High Court observed that delivery of any property or valuable security under threat, is one of the essential ingredients of extortion, which is absent in the instant matter. Hence, the court quashed the case, holding that since no offence u/s 383 of IPC is made out, no offence u/s 387 IPC could be made out. Thus the present appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether delivery of property is a necessary condition for Section 387 IPC?
- Whether the High Court exceeded its writ jurisdiction by quashing the summons and the criminal case?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389 IPC, Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS
The petitioner council primarily asserts the validity of the summons issued by the trial court on the basis of the statements of witnesses and the complaint. The learned council thereby contends that the High Court has wrongly relied on the judgments regarding 384 IPC and not 387 IPC.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
Respondent 2 in the present appeal argues that the essential ingredient of extortion i.e., delivery of property, has not been fulfilled and hence the charge u/s 387 IPC cannot be sustained. The council relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana V Bhajan Lal and Inder Mohan Goswami V State of Uttaranchal, underscoring that criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking personal vendetta.
Additionally, relying on Motibhai Fulabhai Patel & Co. v R. Prasad, Dilip Kumar Sharma v State of M. P., and Tolaram Relumal v State of Bombay, the council submitted that section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of extortion. It must be interpreted strictly and should not be stretched to cover mere threats without any delivery of property or valuable security.
ANALYSIS
All offences envisaged under IPC have their prescribed ingredients and distinct punishments. A perusal of all provisions related to the offence of extortion, i.e., Section 383 – 389, reveals a clear distinction between the actual commission of the offence of extortion and the process of putting in apprehension of the commission of the offence. Sections 383, 384, 386 and 388 deals with the actual commission of extortion. On the other hand, sections 385, 387 and 389 IPC punishes acts committed for the purpose of extortion, though the act of extortion itself may not be committed. Since section 387 IPC provides for a stage prior to committing extortion, similar to section 385 IPC, Section 387 is essentially an aggravated form of section 385 IPC and not 384 IPC.
The court proceeded to rely on the essential ingredients of extortion as per section 383 IPC, laid down by this court in R. S. Nayak v A. R. Antulay. Analyzing section 387 IPC in light of this judgment, the court concluded that Section 386 is an act in itself, whereas Section 387 is the process. Hence, the commission of the offence under section 386 is not sine qua non for an offence under section 387, and thus, the delivery of property is not necessary.
The court further solidified this position by referring to the interpretation of this court in Radha Ballabh v State of U. P. and Gurusharan Singh v State of Punjab, wherein convictions under section 387 were upheld despite the absence of an actual transfer.
Hence, the reasoning adopted by the High Court in issuing the summons, is flawed and misplaced on the face of it. Nowhere does the concerned provision state that extortion has to be committed while putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. Putting a person in fear itself makes an accused guilty of the offence under section 387 IPC. All ingredients of extortion prescribed under section 383 IPC need not be satisfied. It can be prima facie asserted from the complaint that, (a) the complainant was put in fear of death by pointing a gun towards him, and (b) it was done to pressurize the complainant to deliver Rs.5 Lakhs. Thus, the High Court erred in relying on the delivery of the said amount.
Lastly, the court directed attention to the penal provisions related to extortion, underscoring the need to peruse the necessary principles of quashing laid down by this court via various judgments, that govern the jurisdiction of High Courts under section 482 CrPC. Referring its judgments in B. N. John v State of U. P., Dalip Kaur v Jagnar Singh and Neeharika Infrastructure (p) Ltd. v State of Maharashtra, the court highlights that the power of quashing should be excercised sparingly with circumspection in the ‘rarest of rare cases’ and not as an ordinary rule.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme allowed the present appeal. The impugned order dated 28th June 2024 is set aside and the proceedings emanating from the complaint case no. 58 of 2022 are restored to the file of the trial court. The parties are hereby directed to hereby directed to appear before the trial court on 12th August 2025. The parties are further directed to fully cooperate and the hearing is expedited.
CONCLUSION
The Judgment at hand provides s a highly constructive interpretation of the provisions regarding the offence of extortion. The judgment essentially highlights the principle that under section 387 IPC is concerned with putting a person in the fear to extract money, not necessarily on whether the delivery of property or any valuable security actually occurred or not. Furthermore, the Court underscored that High Courts must exercise their power under section 482 CrPC, in rarety than an ordinary rule.
“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 AYANA THERESA XAVIER
