Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL/__/2025 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3159/2025).
Case Title: M/s. Balaji Traders v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
Headnote: The offence of “putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion” under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is distinct from the offence of “extortion” under Section 383. For an offence under Section 387, the actual delivery of property is not a necessary ingredient. The offence is complete when a person is put in fear of death or grievous hurt with the intention of committing extortion. The High Court cannot quash a summoning order for an offence under Section 387 merely because no property was actually delivered, as this would amount to incorrectly applying the ingredients of Section 383 to a separate and distinct offence. (Drafted based on the judgment).
Court: The Supreme Court of India.
Type: Judgment.
SCR Citation: NA.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 806.
Disposal Nature: Appeal Allowed.
Case Type: CRIMINAL APPEAL.
Law Type: Criminal Law.
Judgment Authored by: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol* and Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra.
Date of Judgment: June 05, 2025.
Case Start Date: June 05, 2025 (Date of grant of leave).
Case Arising From: The appeal arose from a judgment and order dated June 28, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court, in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had quashed a summoning order dated August 28, 2023, issued by the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun) against the accused for an offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court’s decision was based on the reasoning that since no property was actually delivered, an essential ingredient of extortion was missing.
Background and Facts: The appellant-complainant, Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal, proprietor of M/s. Balaji Traders, filed a criminal complaint alleging that the accused, Sanjay Gupta, who had started a rival business with a similar name, was trying to extort money from him. On May 22, 2022, the accused, along with three unknown persons carrying rifles, allegedly stopped the complainant, threatened him to close his business, and demanded five lakh rupees per month to allow him to continue. When the complainant refused, he was beaten, and an attempt was made to kidnap him. After the police failed to register an FIR, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC.
Timeline:
- May 22, 2022: The alleged incident of threat and extortion demand occurred.
- 2022: The complainant filed Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 before the Trial Court.
- August 28, 2023: The Trial Court found a prima facie case and issued summons to the accused under Section 387 IPC.
- 2024: The accused filed a Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court to quash the summoning order.
- June 28, 2024: The High Court allowed the application and quashed the summoning order and the entire proceedings.
- June 05, 2025: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the criminal proceedings.
Parties Involved:
- Appellant: M/s. Balaji Traders (Complainant).
- Respondents: The State of U.P. & Anr. (Accused – Sanjay Gupta).
Procedural History:
- Lower Court/Subordinate court/Tribunals Decisions: The Trial Court (Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Jalaun) found a prima facie case based on the complaint and witness statements and issued summons to the accused under Section 387 IPC.
- Appeals:
- The accused approached the High Court of Allahabad, which quashed the summoning order, holding that the offence of extortion was not made out as there was no delivery of property.
- The complainant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Framed: Not Applicable.
Areas of Debate:
- What are the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 387 of the IPC (Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion)?
- Is the actual delivery of property a necessary ingredient for an offence under Section 387 IPC, or is it only required for the offence of extortion under Section 383 IPC?
- Did the High Court err in quashing the criminal proceedings by conflating the ingredients of Section 383 IPC with Section 387 IPC?
Cases Cited:
- Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused/Appellant: NA.
- Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State:
- Dhananjay @ Dhandhanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2007) 14 SCC 768: Relied upon to argue that delivery of property is an essential ingredient of extortion. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating it dealt with Section 384 IPC, not 387.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1: Cited to argue that criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment.
- Motibhai Fulabhai Patel & Co. v. R. Prasad (1968 SCC OnLine SC 310), Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. (1976) 1 SCC 560), and Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay (1954) 1 SCC 961): Cited for the principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed.
- Judicial Consideration by the Court:
- R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1986) 2 SCC 716: Cited to lay down the essential ingredients of extortion under Section 383 IPC.
- Radha Ballabh v. State of U.P. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 119) and Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) 10 SCC 190: Cited as instances where convictions under Section 387 IPC were upheld even when the extorted money was not paid.
- Somasundaram v. State (2020) 7 SCC 722: A three-judge bench decision cited to show that a conviction under Section 387 IPC was upheld even though there was no delivery of property, emphasizing that it is a more serious form of the offence where the victim is put in fear of death or grievous hurt.
- B.N. John v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 7), Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh (2009) 14 SCC 696), and Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401): Cited to reiterate the established principles governing the exercise of the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Acts/Rules/Orders Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 383 (Extortion): Defines the offence of extortion, which requires dishonest inducement and delivery of property.
- Section 384 (Punishment for extortion): Provides punishment for the completed offence of extortion.
- Section 385 (Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion): Punishes the act of putting someone in fear of injury to commit extortion.
- Section 386 (Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt): An aggravated form of extortion where the act is completed.
- Section 387 (Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion): The central provision in this case. The Court held it punishes the process of committing extortion, where the victim is put in fear of death or grievous hurt, and does not require the actual delivery of property.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
- Section 200 (Examination of complainant): The provision under which the complainant filed the private complaint.
- Section 482 (Saving of inherent powers of High Court): The provision under which the High Court quashed the proceedings.
Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Literature Citation:
- Petitioner/Plaintiff/Accused/Appellant: NA.
- Respondent/Opponent/State: NA.
Appearances:
- Advocates: NA.
- Witnesses: NA.
- Other Persons: NA.
Prayer: The appellant-complainant prayed for the setting aside of the High Court’s order which had quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused.
Evidence & Findings:
- Evidence Type: Complaint and witness statements.
- Description: The complainant alleged that he was threatened with a gun and a demand for Rs. 5 lakhs was made.
- Findings: The Supreme Court found that the complaint prima facie disclosed the two essential ingredients for prosecution under Section 387 IPC: (a) the complainant was put in fear of death by a gun being pointed at him, and (b) this was done to pressure him to deliver Rs. 5 lakhs. The High Court’s emphasis on the non-delivery of money was found to be erroneous.
Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused Arguments: The appellant argued that the Trial Court had rightly issued summons under Section 387 IPC, and the High Court wrongly quashed the proceedings by applying the ingredients of Section 384 IPC (completed extortion) instead of Section 387 (attempt to extort by putting in fear of death).
Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State Arguments: The accused-respondent argued that since the essential ingredient of extortion, i.e., delivery of property, was not met, the charge under Section 387 IPC could not be sustained. He also claimed the complaint was a “counterblast” to a trademark dispute.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The Indian Penal Code creates a clear distinction between the actual commission of extortion (Section 383, punishable under 384) and the act of putting a person in fear to commit extortion (punishable under Sections 385, 387, etc.).
- Section 387 IPC criminalizes the process or a stage prior to the commission of extortion. Its essential ingredients are: (a) putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, and (b) doing so in order to commit extortion.
- The actual delivery of property or valuable security is not a necessary ingredient for an offence under Section 387 IPC. The offence is complete once a person is put in fear of death or grievous hurt with the specified intent.
- A High Court, while exercising its power to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, cannot misapply the law by requiring the ingredients of a completed offence (extortion) to be met for an inchoate or preparatory offence (putting in fear to commit extortion).
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated June 28, 2024, was set aside, and the criminal proceedings emanating from Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 were restored to the file of the Trial Court.
Legal Jargons and Maxims:
- Prima facie: A Latin expression meaning “at first sight” or “on the face of it.”
- Sine qua non: A Latin phrase meaning “without which, not.” It refers to an essential condition or a thing that is absolutely necessary.
- Counterblast: A retaliatory action or argument.
Exhibits: NA.