13 June 2025 Legal Updates

S.387 IPC |ACTUAL PROPERTY DELIVERY NOT REQUIRED; OFFENCE COMMITTED WHEN PERSON PUT IN FEAR OF DEATH/GRIEVOUS INJURY: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• M/s. Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• 5th June, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Manoj Misra

Facts of the Case

• Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal, proprietor of M/s. Balaji Traders (betel nut business), filed a complaint against Sanjay Gupta. The complainant alleged that on 22nd May 2022, the accused along with three unknown persons carrying rifles threatened him to close down his betel nut business, or Pay Rs. 5 lakhs per month to continue the business. When the complainant refused, the accused persons allegedly beat him and attempted to kidnap him. After police failed to register an FIR, he approached the court under Section 200 CrPC.

Legal Proceedings

• Trial Court: Issued summons against the accused under Section 387 IPC (putting person in fear of death/grievous hurt to commit extortion)
• High Court (Allahabad): Quashed the summoning order, holding that since no money was actually delivered, no offence under Section 387 IPC was made out

Key Legal Issue

• Whether delivery of property/money is essential for an offence under Section 387 IPC?

Supreme Court's Analysis

1. Distinction Between Extortion Provisions:

• The Court clarified the difference between various extortion sections:

2. Completed Extortion Offences:

• Section 383: Basic extortion (requires actual delivery of property)
• Section 384: Punishment for extortion
• Section 386: Aggravated extortion (fear of death/grievous hurt)

3. Preparatory/Attempt Offences:

• Section 385: Putting person in fear to commit extortion
• Section 387: Putting person in fear of death/grievous hurt to commit extortion
• Section 389: Putting person in fear of accusation to commit extortion

Essential Ingredients of Section 387 IPC:

• The Court observed that there are two important essential ingredients of extortion- firstly, the accused must put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt and secondly, such act must be done "in order to commit extortion"
• Key Holding: Section 387 IPC criminalizes the process of committing extortion, not the completed act. Therefore, actual delivery of property is NOT required.

Supreme Court's Reasoning

• Legislative Intent: Legislature deliberately created separate offences for completed extortion vs. preparatory acts
• Strict Interpretation: While penal statutes must be strictly construed, courts cannot add ingredients not prescribed by law. It was wrong on the part of the High Court to import requirements of Section 383 (actual extortion) into Section 387.

Decision: Appeal Allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and the case was restored to the Trial Court for continuation of proceedings.

Key Legal Principles:

• Statutory Interpretation: Penal statutes must be strictly construed but courts cannot add non-existent ingredients
• Extortion Law: There is a clear distinction between completed crimes and preparatory offences

PREVENTIVE DETENTION CAN'T BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR BAIL CANCELLATION : SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Dhanya M v. State of Kerala & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 6, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan

Facts of the Case

• Rajesh, husband of the appellant Dhanya M, was running a registered lending firm called 'Rithika Finance'. The District Magistrate of Palakkad issued a preventive detention order against him under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, declaring him a 'notorious goonda' based on four criminal cases related to money lending violations and other offenses. Rajesh was already on bail in all these cases and was complying with bail conditions.

Legal Issue

• Whether the preventive detention of Rajesh was justified under law, especially when he was already on bail and complying with court conditions.

Court’s Analysis

1. Nature of Preventive Detention

• Preventive detention is an extraordinary power that must be used sparingly. It curtails individual liberty in anticipation of future offenses. It is an exception to Article 21 and should be applied only in rare cases. The burden lies on the detaining authority to prove such action conforms to procedure established by law

2. Public Order vs. Law and Order Distinction

• Public Order: Has narrower ambit; affects community or public at large; disturbs the even tempo of community life
• Law and Order: Wider scope; affects only specific individuals directly involved
• The distinction between the two lies in the degree and extent of the act's reach upon society, not just the nature of the act.

3. Preventive Detention vs. Ordinary Criminal Law

• Preventive detention should not be used when ordinary criminal law provides sufficient remedies. If a person is on bail, the State should move for cancellation of bail rather than resorting to preventive detention. Preventive detention is not meant to circumvent ordinary criminal procedure

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the detention order dated June 20, 2024 and the High Court judgment dated September 4, 2024.

Reasoning

• Insufficient justification for public order concern: The detention order failed to explain how the detenu's actions were against public order rather than mere law and order issues
• Availability of alternative remedies: Since Rajesh was on bail in all cases, the proper remedy was to seek cancellation of bail, not preventive detention
• Lack of proper grounds: No application had been filed alleging violation of bail conditions, and no specific reasons were given for why extraordinary preventive detention power was necessary