The Supreme Court has ruled that actual delivery of money or property is not necessary to establish the offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Instead, putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt with the intent of extortion is sufficient to attract liability under this section.

Read also: Supreme Court: Builder not liable to pay interest on homebuyer's bank loan for delay in possession of flat

A division bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Justices Manoj Mishra set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had quashed the summons issued to an accused in a criminal complaint filed under Section 387 IPC.

The case arose from a complaint by a betel nut business owner alleging that respondent no. 1 and his associates threatened him at gunpoint, demanding Rs 5 lakh per month or to shut down his business. Despite this, the High Court set aside the trial court proceedings, holding that there was no extortion as no property or money was actually delivered.

"Merely intimidating a person would render the accused guilty of the offence under Section 387 IPC; it is not necessary for all the elements of extortion under Section 383 IPC to be fulfilled." - Supreme Court

Read also: Supreme Court quashes 498A IPC case against husband and in-laws on grounds of vague allegations, warns against misuse

Rejecting the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court held that Section 387 IPC does not require the actual transfer of any valuable property, unlike Section 383 IPC, which defines extortion and includes delivery as an essential element.

"We are of the view that the case does not deserve to be dismissed…The complainant was put in fear of death by pointing a gun at him and this act was done to pressurise him to pay ₹5 lakh." - Justice Sanjay Karol

The Court further clarified that the High Court had wrongly applied the test under Section 383 IPC instead of correctly assessing the elements of Section 387. It emphasised that the fear induced by the accused was sufficient to maintain the complaint.

Read also: Read also: Kapil Sibal raises concern over delay in action on impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav

To buttress its decision, the Court cited Somasundaram v. State, (2020) 7 SCC 722, where an accused was convicted under Section 387 even though the victim was murdered before the threat could be carried out.

Case Title: M/S. BALAJI TRADERS VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR Ms. Priya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Raj Ranjay Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shariq Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Tariq Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vinay Vats, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Modassir Shams, Adv. M/S. Ahmadi Law Offices, AOR