The case involved a complainant, Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal, a betel nut leaves business owner, who alleged that Sanjay Gupta, who ran a similar business, along with three armed individuals, stopped and threatened him. They allegedly demanded Rs. 5 lakhs per month to allow him to continue his business and assaulted him upon his refusal, even attempting a kidnapping. Following the police's failure to register an FIR, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Trial Court, after reviewing the evidence, found a prima facie case and summoned Sanjay Gupta under Section 387 IPC. However, the Allahabad High Court subsequently quashed this summoning order and the entire proceedings. The High Court's reasoning was that a crucial element of extortion—the actual delivery of property under threat—was missing, and thus, no offense under Section 383 (extortion) or, consequently, Section 387 IPC was made out.

High Court's Flawed Interpretation of Extortion Law:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, meticulously examined the various sections of the IPC related to extortion, including Sections 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, and 389. The Court highlighted a crucial distinction:

• Sections 383, 384, 386, and 388 IPC deal with the actual commission of extortion or its aggravated forms.

• Sections 385, 387, and 389 IPC penalize acts committed "in order to commit extortion," even if the extortion itself is not completed and no property is delivered.

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court's reasoning, stating it was "flawed and misplaced." It emphasized that when the legislature creates distinct offenses with separate ingredients and punishments, attributing the essential ingredient of one section to another is an incorrect approach.

"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," the Supreme Court observed. "Extortion is not yet committed; it is in the process of committing it that a person is put in fear."

Strict Interpretation of Penal Statutes:

The Court reiterated the well-settled principle of law that penal statutes must be given a strict interpretation. It stressed that courts should not read anything into a statutory provision that imposes penal liability that the statute itself does not explicitly prescribe. Therefore, the High Court's insistence on the delivery of money for an offense under Section 387 IPC was deemed legally unfounded.

Referring to previous judgments, the Supreme Court highlighted cases where convictions under Section 387 IPC were upheld even when the extorted money was not paid or property was not delivered.

Case Restored to Trial Court:

Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court concluded that the two essential ingredients for prosecution under Section 387 IPC were prima facie disclosed in the complaint: (a) that the complainant was put in fear of death by pointing a gun; and (b) that this was done to pressurize him to deliver money. The Court held that the High Court had wrongly emphasized the non-delivery of the amount.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated June 28, 2024, and restored the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 to the Trial Court. The parties have been directed to appear before the Trial Court on August 12, 2025, and to cooperate fully for an expedited hearing.

This judgment provides crucial clarity on the interpretation of extortion-related offenses, particularly distinguishing between the completed act of extortion and preparatory acts done "in order to commit extortion," thereby reinforcing the broader scope of protection under the IPC against criminal intimidation for gain.

Section 383, Indian Penal Code - 1860     

Section 385., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 386., Indian Penal Code - 1860 

Section 387., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 388., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 389., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860