Courtesy: Meenakshi Shukla
The offence of extortion is often marked by serious allegations involving threats to life, reputation, or property for unlawful gain. However, not every allegation of extortion warrants a criminal trial as in many instances, complaints may be exaggerated, malicious, or lack essential ingredients of the offence under law. Consequently, individuals seek recourse under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings which are false, frivolous, or an abuse of the process of the Court.
Courts are increasingly called upon to scrutinise whether extortion, often driven by allegations of mere threats, warrant the continuation of criminal proceedings at all. The recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. [1], has clarified a crucial issue: Can criminal proceedings under Section 387 IPC be quashed if there is no delivery of property?
The Court emphasised that quashing should not be used to “stifle legitimate prosecution, especially when a prima facie case is made out. It observed:
“25. The reasoning adopted by the High Court is, on the face of it, flawed and misplaced. When the Legislature has created two separate offences with distinct ingredients and punishments, then assigning the essential ingredient of one to another is not a correct approach adopted by the High Court. 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. 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.“
This article breaks down the legal position, scope of quashing extortion matters and the essential grounds that one must raise when seeking to invoke the inherent powers of the Allahabad High Court in such matters.
What are the offences involving extortion under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Indian Penal Code, 1860?
| Comments | Provision under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita | Provision under Indian Penal Code |
| Illustration (e) added | 308(1)-Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion. Illustrations. (a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion. (b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has committed extortion. (c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion. (d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion. (e) A threatens Z by sending a message through an electronic device that “Your child is in my possession, and will be put to death unless you send me one lakh rupees.” A thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion. | 383-Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”. Illustrations (a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion. (b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z sings and delivers the note. A has committed extortion. (c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion. (d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z sings and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion. |
| Punishment enhanced | 308(2)Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. | 384. Punishment for extortion.—Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. |
| Same | (3) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. | 385. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion.—Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. |
| Same | (4) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. | 387. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.— Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. |
| Same | (5) Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. | 386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.—Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. |
| Necessary deletion of redundant part | (6) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit, an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. | 389. Putting person in fear or accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion.—Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit, an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with imprisonment for life. |
| Necessary deletion of redundant part | (7) Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed or attempted to commit any offence punishable with death, or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, or of having attempted to induce any other person to commit such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. | 388. Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, etc.—Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed or attempted to commit any offence punishable with death, or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, or of having attempted to induce any other person to commit such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be one punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with imprisonment for life. |
There is a new offence which has been added in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita with the marginal note of Organized Crime under Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, and the same is as follows:
111. Organised crime.—(1) Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, human trafficking for prostitution or ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit, shall constitute organised crime.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,—
(i) “organised crime syndicate” means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or jointly, as a syndicate or gang indulge in any continuing unlawful activity;
(ii) “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence, and includes economic offence;
(iii) “economic offence” includes criminal breach of trust, forgery, counterfeiting of currency notes, bank-notes and Government stamps, hawala transaction, mass-marketing fraud or running any scheme to defraud several persons or doing any act in any manner with a view to defraud any bank or financial institution or any other institution or organisation for obtaining monetary benefits in any form.
(2) Whoever commits organised crime shall,—
(a) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees;
(b) in any other case, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(3) Whoever abets, attempts, conspires or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organised crime, or otherwise engages in any act preparatory to an organised crime, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(5) Whoever, intentionally, harbours or conceals any person who has committed the offence of an organised crime shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the spouse of the offender.
(6) Whoever possesses any property derived or obtained from the commission of an organised crime or proceeds of any organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than two lakh rupees.
(7) If any person on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate is, or at any time has been in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.
Hence, if there is continuing extortion undertaken by an organized crime syndicate shall also be punishable under Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.
What are the essential ingredients of Extortion?
The essential ingredients of extortion under Section 308(1) (formerly 383 IPC), as laid down by this Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay[2] , are :
“60. …The main ingredients of the offence are:
- the accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person;
- the putting of a person in such fear must be intentional;
- the accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security; and
- such inducement must be done dishonestly.
Before a person can be said to put any person in fear of any injury to that person, it must appear that he has held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future. If all that a man does is to promise to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do and says that if money is not paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an offence of extortion. …”
What are the kinds of grounds that one must agitate before the Allahabad High Court while seeking the quashing remedy in extortion matters?
The Hon’ble Apex Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P.[3], reiterated several principles of quashing criminal cases/complaints/FIR as laid down in State of Haryana v.Bhajan Lal[4], and the same is captured below:
- Prima facie offence not made out: Even if all allegations in the FIR or complaint are accepted in entirety to be true, they do not constitute an offence.
- Lack of Cognizable Offence: FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence, inviting an investigation by police under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
- Allegations are Absurd or Inherently Improbable: Allegations and evidence, even if unchallenged, fail to show commission of any offence.
- Mala Fide or Vexatious Proceedings: The case is registered with mala fide intent, driven by personal vendetta or to harass the accused.
- Absence of Essential Ingredients of Extortion: In extortion, absence of delivery of property may justify quashing. However, in Section 387 IPC, delivery is not essential, so this cannot be a ground for quashing under Section 387. A perusal of Section 387 IPC reveals its essential ingredients, to be : (a) Accused must have put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt; (b) Such an act must have been done in order to commit extortion.
The abovementioned list is not exhaustive, and a case for quashing can be made out based on another ground in light of the facts and circumstances of the respective case.
What is the scope of quashing proceedings pertaining to extortion matters?
The power of the High Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is extraordinary and discretionary. Courts must exercise it sparingly and only in exceptional situations. The Supreme Court in Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh[5] reaffirmed that quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings should not be granted as a matter of routine.
“11. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that the HighCourt would exercise its inherent jurisdiction only whenone or the other propositions of law, as laid down in R.Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [(2009) 1 SCC 516 : (2009) 1SCC (Cri) 567] is attracted, which are asunder: (SCC p.523, para 15)
“(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.”
In Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra[6], a three-judge Bench laid down a clear guideline: quashing should be an exception, not the rule. It described the power under Section 482 CrPC as one that should be exercised in the “rarest of rare cases”.
“13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the “rarest of rare cases”. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.)…
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.…
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482 CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the Court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.”
It is a well-settled principle of law that penal statutes must be given strict interpretation. The Court ought not to read anything into a statutory provision that imposes penal liability. The aforesaid standard also applies to quashing of a case in which offences of extortion are alleged.
Can criminal proceedings under Section 387 IPC be quashed solely on the ground that the accused did not receive any extorted property or money?
No. delivery of property is not essential to constitute an offence under Section 387 IPC. The offence under Section 387 IPC is complete when a person is put in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, regardless of whether any property is actually delivered.
Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order to quash the proceedings. The Allahabad High Court wrongly relied on the absence of property delivery and applied the test under Section 383 IPC, not Section 387 IPC. The Supreme Court held this to be legally flawed.The expression ‘in order to’ clearly reveals that it is in the process of committing the offence of extortion. Apex Court held that:
“14.Thus, it can be said in terms of Sections 386 (an aggravatedform 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 committingan offence of extortion. The Legislature was mindful enough tocriminalise the process by making it a distinct offence.Therefore, the commission of an offence of extortion is not a 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.”
Other cases on with the court relied were Radha Ballabh v. State of U.P[7]., Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab[8] where ransom and extorted money were not paid respectively.
Whether the High Court can, in a quashing petition, assess whether the ingredients of extortion under Section 383 IPC are satisfied in a case registered under Section 387 IPC?
No, the High Court cannot apply the ingredients of Section 383 IPC to assess the validity of a complaint registered under Section 387 IPC, as these are distinct offences with different legal elements.
Can a criminal proceeding be quashed under Section 482 CrPC/ 528 BNSS where the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie made out?
No. If the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie disclosed, then the Allahabad High Court may not quash such proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/ 528 BNSS. The power is meant to be used sparingly and in rarest of rare cases, only in accordance with the two conditions provided in the provision itself, i.e. to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
[1]2025 INSC 806
[2](1986) 2 SCC 716
[3]2025 SCC OnLine SC 7
[4]1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
[5](2009) 14 SCC 696
[6](2021) 19 SCC 401
[7]1995 Supp (3) SCC 119
[8](1996) 10 SCC 190