Delivery Of Money, Property Not Necessary For Invoking S.387 IPC: SC

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that actual delivery of money or property is not a prerequisite for invoking Section 387 IPC, which deals with putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra set aside a June 2024 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had quashed the summoning order and related criminal proceedings against an accused in a complaint filed under Section 387 IPC.

“The Legislature was mindful enough to criminalize the process by making it a distinct offence. Therefore, the commission of an offence of extortion is not sine qua non for an offence under this Section. It is safe to deduce that for prosecution under Section 387 IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary” the Court observed.

Background of the Case

The appeal arose from a complaint filed by Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal, proprietor of M/s Balaji Traders, who is engaged in the business of betel nut leaves. Agrawal alleged that the accused, Sanjay Gupta, who was operating a business under the same name and engaged in pending litigation with him over intellectual property rights, had threatened him with dire consequences.

On May 22, 2022, while Agrawal was on his way home, Gupta and three unidentified men allegedly intercepted him with rifles in hand, threatened him to shut down his business, and demanded a payment of ₹5 lakh per month to continue operations. Upon his refusal, they reportedly assaulted him and attempted to kidnap him. After the police failed to register an FIR, Agrawal filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC.

High Court's Reasoning and Supreme Court's Reversal

The Allahabad High Court quashed the complaint on the ground that no money or property was actually delivered to the accused, relying on its understanding that extortion under Section 383 IPC requires such delivery. It concluded that, in the absence of this element, an offence under Section 387 could not be made out.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected this view.

“A glance over all the Sections related to extortion would reveal a clear distinction being carried out between the actual commission of extortion and the process of putting a person in fear for the purpose of committing extortion,” the Court stated.

The bench explained that while Sections 386 and 388 IPC deal with the actual commission of aggravated extortion, Sections 385, 387, and 389 IPC criminalize the process of creating fear to facilitate extortion, even if the intended delivery of property has not occurred.

“Section 387 IPC provides for a stage prior to committing extortion, which is putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt 'in order to commit extortion', similar to Section 385 IPC. Hence, Section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of 385 IPC, not 384 IPC,” the judgment clarified.

Strict Interpretation of Penal Statutes

The Court underscored that penal provisions must be interpreted strictly, without adding conditions not expressly included by the legislature.

“Section 387 IPC, being a penal provision, has to be strictly interpreted, and no condition/essential ingredient can be read into it that the Statute/Section does not prescribe. There is no ambiguity in the provision,” the Court said.

It also warned against confusing the essential elements of distinct offences created under separate statutory provisions.

“Nowhere does the Section say that extortion has to be committed while putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. Instead, it is the other way around—that is to say, putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt to commit extortion. Extortion is not yet committed; it is in the process of committing it that a person is put in fear.”

Without delving into the merits of the case, the Supreme Court held that the two core ingredients necessary to proceed under Section 387 IPC were clearly present: (i) the complainant was allegedly put in fear of death by the accused pointing firearms at him, and (ii) the fear was induced with the intent to extract money.

The Court restored the complaint before the trial court and directed the parties to appear on August 12, 2025. It further instructed them to cooperate with the proceedings and asked the trial court to expedite the matter.

Case Title: M/s Balaji Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.