Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra in the matter of M/S. Balaji Traders v. The State of U.P. & Anr. held that an offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) does not necessitate the actual delivery of property; merely putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt with the intent to commit extortion is sufficient to constitute the offence. 

What was the Background of M/S. Balaji Traders v. The State of U.P. & Anr.(2025) Case? 

Background and Initial Incident: 

• Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal is the proprietor of M/s. Balaji Traders, conducting betel nut leaves business. 
• Sanjay Gupta allegedly started a business under the same name as "Balaji Traders". 
• Trademark and Copyright litigations were pending between both parties. 
• On 22nd May 2022, when the complainant was heading towards his house, the accused along with three unknown persons carrying rifles stopped him. 
• The accused threatened the complainant to close down his betel nut business. 
• They demanded Rs. 5 lakhs per month for allowing him to continue the business. 
• Upon complainant's refusal, the accused persons beat him and attempted to kidnap him. 

Legal Proceedings Journey: 

Trial Court: 

• Police failed to register First Information Report (FIR) initially. 
• Complainant approached the Court by filing a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).  
• Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dacoit Prabhav Area, Jalaun Place Orai) analyzed oral and documentary evidence. 
• The trial Court found a prima facie case against the accused and issued summons under Section 387 IPC on 28th August 2023. 

High Court: 

• Accused approached Allahabad High Court filing Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC. 
• The High Court passed judgment on 28th June 2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.19550/2024. 
• The High Court quashed the summoning order dated 28th August 2023. 
• The High Court also quashed entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.58 of 2022 under Section 387 IPC. 
• The High Court reasoned that the essential ingredient of extortion (delivery of property) was missing. 
• The High Court observed that no money was handed over to the accused person. 
• High Court concluded that since no offence under Section 383 IPC was made out, consequently no offence under Section 387 IPC would be established. 

Supreme Court: 

• Appellant-complainant preferred Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.3159/2025 
• The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the matter.

What were the Court’s Observations?

On Distinction Between Different Sections of Extortion: 

• A clear distinction exists between the actual commission of extortion and the process of putting a person in fear for the purpose of committing extortion. 
• Sections 383, 384, 386, and 388 deal with actual commission of extortion. 
• Sections 385, 387, and 389 of IPC punish acts committed for the purpose of extortion even though extortion may not be complete and property not delivered. 
• Section 387 of IPC provides for stage prior to committing extortion - putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt 'in order to commit extortion'. 
• Section 387 IPC is aggravated form of Section 385 of IPC, not Section 384 of IPC. 

On High Court's Approach: 

• The High Court's reasoning was flawed and misplaced. 
• When the Legislature creates two separate offences with distinct ingredients and punishments, assigning essential ingredients of one to another is an incorrect approach. 
• The High Court wrongly relied on judgments dealing with Section 384 of IPC instead of Section 387 of IPC 

On Interpretation of Penal Statutes: 

• Penal statutes must be given strict interpretation. 
• The court ought not to read anything into the statutory provision that imposes penal liability. 
• Scope of provision cannot be extended by reading into words which are not there. 
• Section 387 of IPC being penal provision has to be strictly interpreted. 
• No condition/essential ingredient can be read into it that the Statute/Section does not prescribe. 

On Present Case: 

• The case is not fit for quashing as two essential ingredients for prosecution under Section 387of IPC have been prima facie disclosed. 
• Complainant has been put in fear of death by pointing gun towards him. 
• It was done to pressurize him to deliver Rs. 5 lakhs. 
• The High Court wrongly emphasized that the amount was not delivered.  
• Whether money/property was delivered is not necessary as accused is not charged with Section 384 of IPC. 
• Allegations of putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt would itself make accused liable for prosecution under Section 387 of IPC. 

On Quashing Principles: 

• The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the 'rarest of rare cases'. 
• Quashing should be an exception and rarity than ordinary rules. 
• The High Court ordinarily would not exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceeding unless allegations, even if taken at face value, disclosed no cognizable offence. 
• Such power should be exercised very sparingly.

What is Section 387 of the IPC?

Definition and Scope: 

• Section 387 IPC: "Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion". 
• Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 
• It is an aggravated form of putting a person in fear for the purpose of extortion under Section 385 of IPC. 
• Criminalizes the process by making it a distinct offence, not requiring completion of actual extortion. 

Essential Ingredients of Section 387 IPC: 

• Accused must have put person in fear of death or grievous hurt. 
• Such an act must have been done in order to commit extortion. 
• Expression 'in order to' means 'for the purpose of' or 'with the purpose of doing'. 
• 'In order to commit extortion' reveals it is in the process of committing an offence of extortion. 

Key Legal Principles: 

• Commission of offence of extortion is not sine qua non for offence under Section 387. 
• For prosecution under Section 387 of IPC, delivery of property is not necessary. 
• It is the stage before committing an offence of extortion, not the actual commission. 
• The legislature was mindful to criminalize the process by making it a distinct offence. 
• Putting a person in fear would make accused guilty under Section 387 of IPC without satisfying all ingredients of extortion under Section 383 of IPC. 

Distinction from Other Extortion Sections: 

• Different from Section 383 (defines extortion) which requires delivery of property or valuable security. 
• Different from Section 384 (punishment for extortion) which deals with completed act of extortion. 
• Different from Section 386 (extortion by putting person in fear of death) which is aggravated form of Section 384, dealing with actual commission. 
• Section 387 deals with process, while Section 386 deals with act in itself.