Home / Current Affairs
Criminal Law
Section 387 of IPC
« »12-Jun-2025
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.