Summary
The Supreme Court held that delivery of property is not an ingredient of the offence under Section 387 IPC (putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion), which criminalises the process preceding extortion and is an aggravated form of Section 385, not of Section 384. The Allahabad High Court therefore erred in quashing a summoning order under Section 387 on the ground that no money had been handed over, and the complaint was restored.
Issues
- Whether delivery of property or valuable security, an ingredient of extortion under Section 383 IPC, is also an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 387 IPC.
- Whether the High Court was justified under Section 482 CrPC in quashing the summoning order and the complaint under Section 387 IPC on the ground that no offence of extortion under Section 383 was made out.
- Whether the rule of strict construction of penal statutes assists an accused who seeks to read an additional ingredient into Section 387 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 383 to 389, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court read the extortion provisions together and distinguished two groups: Sections 383/384, 386 and 388 punish the actual commission of extortion (including aggravated forms), whereas Sections 385, 387 and 389 punish acts done 'in order to' commit extortion even if extortion is incomplete and property is not delivered. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- Section 383, Indian Penal Code, 1860The ingredients of extortion as laid down in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, including dishonestly inducing the person put in fear to deliver property or valuable security, were set out; these govern Section 383 and the offences punishing completed extortion, not Section 387. (¶¶ 12, 25, 26)
- Section 387, Indian Penal Code, 1860Its two ingredients are (a) putting or attempting to put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, and (b) doing so 'in order to' (for the purpose of) committing extortion. It covers a stage prior to extortion, is an aggravated form of Section 385 rather than Section 384, and does not require delivery of property. Being penal, nothing not prescribed by it can be read in. (¶¶ 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The inherent power to quash is to be exercised sparingly and only where, among the Bhajan Lal categories, the allegations taken at face value disclose no offence; the court does not go into merits. Since the complaint prima facie disclosed both ingredients of Section 387, the case was not fit for quashing. (¶¶ 17, 18, 26)
Held
- The IPC draws a clear distinction between the actual commission of extortion (Sections 383/384, 386, 388) and the process of putting a person in fear for the purpose of committing extortion (Sections 385, 387, 389). Section 387 criminalises the stage prior to extortion and is an aggravated form of Section 385, not of Section 384. (¶¶ 9, 10, 14)
- For prosecution under Section 387 IPC, delivery of property is not necessary. The commission of extortion is not a sine qua non; the Legislature deliberately made the process a distinct offence, as the decisions in Radha Ballabh, Gursharan Singh and Somasundaram upholding convictions under Section 387 without any property being extorted confirm. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Penal statutes are strictly construed and nothing may be read into them. That principle cuts against the accused here: no condition or ingredient that Section 387 does not prescribe (such as delivery of property) can be read into it, and since its ingredients are unambiguous the rule in Tolaram Relumal favouring the construction that exempts from penalty does not apply. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The High Court's reasoning was flawed: where the Legislature has created two separate offences with distinct ingredients and punishments, assigning the essential ingredient of one to the other is impermissible. Section 387 speaks of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, not of committing extortion while putting a person in fear. Dhananjay v. State of Bihar, which dealt with Section 384, was distinguishable. (¶ 25)
- Without going into merits, the complaint prima facie disclosed both ingredients of Section 387: the complainant was put in fear of death by a gun being pointed at him, and this was done to pressurise him to pay Rs 5 lakhs. Whether the money was delivered was irrelevant as the accused was not charged under Section 384. Consequently the plea that the complaint was a counterblast stood negated, and the case was not fit for quashing. (¶ 26)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's order dated 28 June 2024 set aside and the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 restored to the file of the Trial Court. Parties directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12 August 2025 and to cooperate; hearing expedited. Pending applications disposed of.