SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 387 IPC: THREAT WITH INTENT TO EXTORT DOES NOT REQUIRE PROPERTY DELIVERY
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: 5th June, 2025
Factual Background
The present dispute arises from the appellant, M/s. Balaji Traders, a betel nut business represented by its proprietor Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal, challenged the judgment given by the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad on 28th June 2025. The judgment had quashed the summoning order dated 28th August 2023 and the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 under Section 387 of the IPC. Sanjay Gupta (accused) allegedly operated a betel nut business under the same name as the appellant, for which litigations are pending under the Trademark and Copyright claims. On 22nd May 2022, the accused, with three armed individuals, allegedly intercepted and threatened the appellant to shut down his business or pay Rs. 5 lakhs monthly. Upon refusal, the accused assaulted and attempted to kidnap him. Upon refusal, the accused assaulted and attempted to kidnap him. When the police failed to register an FIR, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Trial Court, finding a prima facie case, issued a summons under Section 387 IPC. The accused challenged this under Section 482 CrPC, leading to the High Court quashing the proceedings, prompting this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Enforceability of the complaint under Section 387 of IPC: Whether the accused can be held liable under Section 387 of IPC without the actual delivery of property mandated under the same
- Fulfilment of conditions for quashing proceedings: Whether the High Court correctly exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the summoning order and proceedings in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 383 IPC, Section 387 IPC, Section 482 CrPC
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The learned counsel for the appellant primarily submits that the summons issued by the Trial Court was rightly executed 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.
The High Court erred in applying the essentials of Section 383 IPC (extortion) to Section 387 IPC, relying on judgments concerning Section 384 IPC (punishment for extortion).
The allegations of threats with firearms, assault, and attempted kidnapping satisfy the essentials of Section 387 IPC, and quashing the proceedings was unjustified.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 (Sanjay Gupta) submits that the absence of delivery of property, which is an essential under Section 387 of IPC, makes the accused not liable for the offence of extortion under the same section. Referring to the case of Dhandhanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2007), where in order to hold one liable under Section 387, the delivery of property has to be fulfilled. Since this aspect is missing in the present case, the accused cannot be held liable for it. Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007), and other cases, the respondent contended that criminal proceedings should not be used for harassment or personal vendetta.
Additionally, it is submitted that since Section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of extortion, it cannot be applied by mere threats without the delivery of property and has to be strictly construed to establish the offence.
ANALYSIS
Regarding the first contention, which is the enforceability of the Court analyses the interpretations of extortion given under Sections 383, 384, 386, 387, 388 and 389. These sections include the definitions of extortion, punishments and aggravated forms of extortion as well. It points out the distinction between the actual act of extortion and the act committed for the purpose of extortion.
The Court examines the essentials of Section 383 of IPC through the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1986). This judgement highlighted the essentials that the accused must intentionally put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person, intentional inducement through fear of injury, dishonest delivery of property or valuable security.
The court proceeds to analyse Section 387 of IPC through its essentials which are the accused must have put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt and that such an act must have been done in order to commit extortion. The phrase, ‘in order to commit extortion’, explicitly indicates that such act is committed in the process of extortion. Referring to case precedents such as Radha Ballabh v. State of U.P. (1995), where the SC held that where ransom was demanded for releasing a child but no ransom was actually paid, the offence could not fall under Section 386 IPC, which requires extortion to be completed through delivery of property. Instead, the conviction under Section 387 IPC was upheld, as the threat with intent to extort was sufficient. Similarly, in Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab (1996), the Court upheld a conviction under Section 387 IPC even though the money demanded was not paid, reaffirming that actual delivery is not a requirement under this provision. Further, in Somasundaram v. State, the court upheld conviction under Section 387 IPC where the victim was tied with iron chains and threatened to part with crores of rupees or execute documents in the accused’s favour. These judgments collectively clarify that under Section 387 IPC, the offence lies in the threatening conduct with intent to extort, and not in the actual receipt of property.
With regards to the second point of contention, the court looks into the principles for quashing proceedings primarily through case law precedents namely Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh (2009), and Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021). These cases emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings is an exception and must be exercised sparingly, only in the “rarest of rare cases” where the allegations do not disclose any cognizable offence or are clearly motivated by mala fide intent. It held that courts should not assess the merits or defence evidence at the quashing stage, but only consider whether the complaint, on its face, discloses a cognizable offence. In this case, threats made by the accused to extort money clearly fell within the ambit of Section 387 IPC, even without delivery of property. The Court rejected the claim that the complaint was retaliatory and clarified that strict interpretation of penal statutes cannot defeat the plain meaning of Section 387, which does not require actual delivery of property. Hence, the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings.
JUDGEMENT
The court noting the above observations allowed the appeal by the complainant. 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.
Further, the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12th August, 2025.
CONCLUSION
The court highlighted the distinction between the charges under Sections 383 and 387 which is extortion and the act committed in order to complete extortion respectively. It held that Section 387 IPC does not require the actual commission of extortion or delivery of property, affirming its distinct nature as a preparatory offence. The High Court’s reasoning, based on the absence of property delivery, was found to be legally flawed. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings are to continue, and both parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12th August, 2025.
“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 SWAPNA HARIDAS
