FAQs on Three Years of Court Practice Judgment   |   Judgment Writing Course – Batch Commences 19th July 2025 | Register Now   |   Judiciary Foundation Course (Indore) – Limited Seats | Starts 17th July 2025   |   Judiciary Foundation Course (Mukherjee Nagar) – New Batch Starts 24th July 2025   |   Don’t miss a single update! Join our Telegram channel today for instant legal alerts, PYQs & more.









Home / Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Section 387 of IPC

    «    »
 12-Jun-2025

M/S. Balaji Traders v. The State of U.P. & Anr. 

“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.” 

Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra

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.