Background:

The present case arose when Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal, owner of M/s Balaji Traders, alleged that Sanjay Gupta and three armed men threatened to kill or seriously harm him unless he paid ₹5 lakh per month to continue his betel nut business. They also allegedly assaulted and attempted to kidnap him. Agrawal filed a criminal complaint under Section 387 IPC (now under Section 308 (4) BNS) (extortion by threat of death or grievous hurt), and a magistrate issued summons. However, the Allahabad High Court quashed the case, stating that no property was actually delivered. Agrawal appealed to the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether the threat alone was enough to constitute the offence under Section 387 (now under Section 308 (4) BNS).

Issues

1. Whether the actual delivery of property is an essential ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 387 of the IPC (now under Section 308 (4) BNS), or if merely putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt "in order to commit extortion" is sufficient?

2. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings at the summoning stage by delving into the absence of the actual delivery of property?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • Section 387 IPC (now under Section 308 (4) BNS) does not require actual extortion or delivery of property as the offence is complete when a person is put in fear of death or grievous hurt with the intent to extort.
• • High Court erred by applying Section 383 IPC (now under Section 308 (1) BNS) requirements in way that this section requires delivery of property, but Section 387 (now under Section 308 (4) BNS) stands independently and focuses on threats, not outcomes.
• • The allegations (threats, armed intimidation, demand for money) were sufficient to summon the accused under Section 387 (now under Section 308 (4) BNS).
• • Improper use of quashing powers undermines justice as Courts must be cautious in using inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, especially when serious allegations are made.
• • Criminal law protects against attempts to extort, not just completed acts because If threats are made with intent to extort, even if unsuccessful, it still constitutes an offence under Section 387 (now under Section 308 (4) BNS).
• • The Supreme Court reinstated the summons and directed that the matter proceeds as per law.

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal:

• • It set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court dated June 28, 2024, which had quashed the criminal proceedings.
• • It restored the proceedings emanating from Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 under Section 387 (now under Section 308 (4) BNS) of the Indian Penal Code to the file of the Trial Court.
• • The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on August 12, 2025, and fully cooperate, with an expedited hearing.

Why this case matters:

• • It decisively settles a long-standing interpretational ambiguity regarding Section 387 IPC (now under Section 308 (4) BNS), making it clear that actual delivery of property is not a prerequisite for an offense under this section.
• • The judgment offers greater protection to victims of intimidation and threats, especially those involving fear of death or grievous hurt.
• • It acts as a stern reminder to High Courts about the limited scope of their inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now under Section 528, BNSS), preventing them from quashing genuine criminal complaints prematurely by misinterpreting statutory provisions.
• • The Court's decision respects the legislative intent behind creating Section 387 (now under Section 308 (4) BNS) as an offense that criminalizes the act of putting a person in fear in order to commit extortion, a stage prior to the actual completion of extortion.

Laws related thereto:

Under BNS:

• Section 308(1): Defines "extortion" as putting any person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property or valuable security.

• Section 308(2): Punishment for extortion.

• Section 308(3): Puts a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion.

• Section 308(4): Deals with "putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion." (The central provision under scrutiny).

Under BSA:

• Section 223: Examination of complainant (under which the private complaint was filed).

• Section 528: Saving of inherent power of High Court (under which the accused sought quashing of proceedings).

Judicial Precedents:

• R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1986)- Used to caution against premature quashing of proceedings when a prima facie case exists.

• Radha Ballabh v. State of U.P., (2007)- Reaffirmed that threat of death or grievous hurt alone constitutes the offence.

• Somasundaram v. State, (2008)- Offence under Section 387 IPC is complete upon making the threat, regardless of outcome. Helped clarify legislative intent behind Section 387.