In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Supreme Court has held that actual delivery of property is not required for an offence under this provision to be complete. The Court emphasized that merely putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt for the purpose of extortion is sufficient to attract criminal liability under Section 387 IPC.
This judgment was delivered in the case M/s. Balaji Traders v. The State of U.P. & Anr., where a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra overturned a decision of the Allahabad High Court, which had previously quashed summons issued to the accused in an extortion case.
The High Court had reasoned that no offence was made out since no money or property was actually delivered to the accused. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the High Court erred by applying the elements of Section 383 IPC, which defines extortion and requires actual delivery of property. The apex court clarified that Section 387 is different and has a lower threshold for establishing criminal liability.
“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.
Case Background
The case involved a criminal complaint filed by the proprietor of Balaji Traders, who alleged that Respondent No.1 and his associates arrived at his premises and threatened him at gunpoint, demanding either closure of his betel nut business or a monthly payment of ₹5 lakhs. Based on this complaint, the Trial Court issued summons to the accused under Section 387 IPC.
However, the Allahabad High Court later quashed the proceedings, citing lack of actual extortion as no money was handed over. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s conclusion, the complainant approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court noted that the facts revealed a clear prima facie case under Section 387 IPC.
“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 emphasized that Section 387 IPC deals with aggravated extortion, where threats of serious bodily harm or death are made, and does not require actual financial loss or delivery of property to the accused. The offence is considered complete upon the creation of fear, aimed at coercing the victim into compliance.
In support of this position, the Court cited Somasundaram v. State (2020) 7 SCC 722, where the accused had threatened the victim to sign documents and later killed him before execution, yet was still held guilty under Section 387 IPC.
Final Verdict
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court restored the case to the Trial Court, instructing both parties to cooperate with the proceedings and ordered that the matter be heard expeditiously.
