Summons Under Section 387 IPC Restored; Supreme Court Holds Delivery of Property Not Necessary for Prosecution

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra heard an appeal against an Allahabad High Court order quashing a summoning order and entire complaint proceedings under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal arose from a challenge to the High Court's conclusion that the essential ingredient of extortion — delivery of property — was not attracted and therefore prosecution under Section 387 IPC could not be sustained.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 28 June 2024 and restored the complaint proceedings to the trial court, directing the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 12 August 2025 and to cooperate so that the hearing was expedited. The Court held that Section 387 IPC penalised the process of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt "in order to commit extortion" and that the commission of extortion was not a sine qua non for an offence under Section 387. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Thus, it can be said in terms of Sections 386 (an aggravated form of 384 IPC) and 387 IPC that the former is an act in itself, whereas the latter is the process; it is a stage before committing an offence of extortion. 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 further emphasised that "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."

Background

The complainant, Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal — proprietor of M/s Balaji Traders engaged in the betel nut business — alleged that the accused, Sanjay Gupta, had commenced a business under the same name and that separate trademark and copyright litigation was pending. On 22 May 2022, while the complainant was returning home, he said that the accused and three others, allegedly carrying rifles, stopped and threatened him to close down his business and demanded Rs.5 lakhs per month; on his refusal they beat him and attempted to kidnap him. After police did not register an FIR, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC. The Trial Court examined oral and documentary material and found a prima facie case, issuing summons under Section 387 IPC.

The accused moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC which quashed the summoning order, reasoning that extortion required delivery of property and that, as no money was handed over, no offence under Section 383 IPC was made out and consequently Section 387 IPC could not be sustained. The High Court relied on authorities addressing the elements of extortion, including Dhananjay @ Dhandhanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar.

The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory scheme of Chapter XVII IPC and precedent, distinguishing between offences which constituted the completed act of extortion (Sections 383, 384, 386, 388) and provisions which punished acts done "in order to" commit extortion (Sections 385, 387, 389). The Court noted prior decisions upholding convictions under Section 387 where no delivery occurred, and reiterated principles governing quashing under Section 482 CrPC — that quashing was an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only where allegations, taken at face value, disclosed no cognizable offence. The Court found the High Court's approach incorrect in importing the ingredient of delivery from Section 383 into Section 387 and held that the complaint, on its face, disclosed the essential elements of Section 387 IPC (putting the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt and doing so in order to commit extortion). The appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside and the complaint was restored for trial. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 806 Case Title: M/s. Balaji Traders v. The State of U.P. & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment