Penal Code, 1860 – ss.383, 387 – On 22.05.2022, when the complainant was heading towards his house, the accused, along with three unknown persons carrying rifles in their hands, stopped and threatened him to close down his business of betel nut – They further threatened that he could carry on the business only if he would pay five lakhs per month to the accused person – On the complainant’s refusal, the accused persons not only beat him but also tried to kidnap him – Complainant filed complaint u/s.200 CrPC – Trial Court found a prima facie case against the accused person and issued summons to him u/s.387 IPC – Accused person filed application u/s.482 CrPC before the High Court for quashing of summoning order – The High Court quashed the summoning order – Correctness:
Held: 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 – It can be said in terms of ss.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 u/s.387 IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary – As far as quashing is concerned, it is settled that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the ‘rarest of rare cases’ and not as an ordinary rule – 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 – Putting a person in fear would make an accused guilty of an offence u/s.387 IPC; it need not satisfy all the ingredients of extortion provided u/s.383 IPC – The instant case is not fit for quashing as the two essential ingredients for prosecution u/s.387 IPC have been prima facie disclosed in the complaint, (a) that the complainant has been put in fear of death by pointing a gun towards him; and (b) that it was done to pressurize him to deliver Rs.5 lakhs – Thus, the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 is set aside, and the proceedings emanating from Complaint Case are restored to the file of the Trial Court. [Paras 9, 10, 18, 25, 26, 27]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.