Independent Prabhat Bureau.

Prayagraj.

The Supreme Court said that Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code is a punitive provision, so it should be interpreted strictly and may not be included in any condition/essential elements that are not determined in the law/stream. The Supreme Court has clarified that the accused will be guilty of an offense under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code by fear of a person; For this, it is not necessary to complete all the elements of forced recovery under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Supreme Court rejected the Allahabad High Court order stating that since there is no crime of extortion under Section 383 of the IPC, there is no crime under Section 387 of the IPC, it is considered a suitable case to cancel it. The court said that Section 387 of the IPC is a punitive provision, so it should be strictly interpreted and no condition/essential element can be read in it which is not determined in the law/section.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Mishra said, “The arguments adopted by the High Court are flawed and wrong at first sight. When the Legislature has created two separate offenses with different elements and punishments, including the essential elements of one of them in the other is not the right approach to the other. The section does not say that no one should say that a person does not want to die or serious injuries. This is the opposite, ie a person is still scared of the crime under Section 387 of the IPC to be scared in the process of forcibly killing a person.

The trial court found a prima facie case against the accused and issued summons under Section 387 of the IPC. Distressed, the accused approached the High Court by filing an application under Section 482 of CRPC to cancel the summons order. The High Court found that to make a case of forced recovery, one of the essential elements has to provide any property or valuable protection to the accused under threats by the complainant, and this element was missing because no money was assigned.

The Supreme Court said, “The scope of the provision cannot be extended by reading the words that are not in it. Section 387 IPC is a punitive provision, so it should be strictly interpreted and no such condition/necessary elements can be added to it which is not prescribed in the law/stream.”

The bench clarified, “Without considering the merits of the case, we believe that the case is not canceled, because under Section 387 IPC, two essential elements for prosecution, as discussed above, have been revealed in the complaint, (A) that the gun has been put in fear of death by stretching the gun to the complainant; and (B) (B) that it was pressured to pay 5 lakh rupees.

While canceling, the High Court has wrongly emphasized the fact that the said amount was not given; It failed to consider whether the money/property was given or not, it is also not necessary as the accused has not been charged under Section 384 IPC. The allegations of a person to fear of death or serious injury make him responsible for prosecution under Section 387 IPC. The natural result of this is that the allegation of a retaliation of criminal case has been rejected. ,

As a result, the Supreme Court ordered, “With the above comments, the appeal is accepted accordingly. The disputed order of June 28, 2024 is canceled, and the action from the complaint case number 58/2022 is restored in the trial court file. The sides are directed to appear before the trial court on August 12, 2025. The parties are directed to fulfill the fulfillment and the parties are directed to fulfill further.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal Messrs Balaji Traders vs. Uttar Pradesh State and others.