Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Supreme Court recently observed that the offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code doesn't require actual delivery of property; instead, putting a person in fear of death/grievous hurt for the purpose of extortion is sufficient. Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra set aside the Allahabad High Court's decision, which had quashed the summons issued to the accused in connection with a complaint registered under Section 387 IPC (Putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to commit Extortion).
The Court rejected the High Court's view that an offence under Section 387 IPC requires actual delivery of property. It clarified that extortion under Section 387 is complete as soon as the victim is put in fear of death or grievous hurt. Unlike Section 383, which defines extortion and necessitates the delivery of property, Section 387 does not require any transfer of valuable property for the offence to be established.
The case involved a criminal complaint under Section 387 IPC (extortion by threat of death/grievous hurt) filed by Appellant's proprietor, alleging that Respondent No.1 and his associates threatened him at gunpoint to either shut down his betel nut business or pay ₹5 lakh/month. The Trial Court issued a summons, but the Allahabad High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that no extortion occurred since no money/property was actually delivered.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that the High Court erred in applying the ingredients of Section 383 IPC, as the complainant/victim was put to fear of death on gunpoint pressurizing him to deliver Rs. 5 Lakhs per month, and such an overt act was sufficient to invoke Section 387 IPC despite there was no actual delivery of property. “Putting a person in fear would make an accused guilty of an offence under Section 387 IPC; it need not satisfy all the ingredients of extortion provided under Section 383 IPC.”, the court said.
“we are of the view that the instant case is not fit for quashing as the two essential ingredients for prosecution under Section 387 IPC, as discussed supra have been prima facie disclosed in the complaint, (a) that the 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. The High Court, while quashing, has wrongly emphasized the fact that the said amount was not delivered; it failed to consider whether the money/property was delivered or not, is not even necessary as the accused is not charged with Section 384 IPC. The allegations of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt would itself make him liable to be prosecuted under Section 387 IPC.”, the court added. In this regard, the Court cited the case of Somasundaram v. State, (2020) 7 SCC 722, where the accused threatened the victim to sign documents but killed him before compliance, still held guilty under Section 387.
In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal, restored the case to the file of the trial court, and the parties were directed to fully cooperate, and the hearing was expedited.
Case Title: M/S. BALAJI TRADERS VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (2025 SC)
