EXTORTION UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

1. SECTION 383 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other,
and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a
valuable security, commits “extortion”.

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS
The essential ingredients which constitute the offence u/s 383 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
are as follows:
a. the accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person;
b. the putting of person in such fear must be intentional;
c. the accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any
property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed with may be converted into a
valuable security;
d. such inducement must be done dishonestly.
The aforementioned ingredients were observed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of
Dhananjay v. State of Bihar and Ors. (SC)

 The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person.
- It is essential to have a fear of injury to constitute an offence of extortion. The fear of
injury could be to the reputation, body or body of another person. [Lanka Hanumantha
Rao And Others v. State Of A.P And Others (AP High Court)].
- The ‘fear’ must be of such a nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person on
whom it operates, and takes away from his acts that element of free voluntary action
which alone constitutes consent. [Walton v Walton, (1863) 9 Cox 268.]
- For an offence of extortion, fear or threat of fear must be used. A person can be said to
be put any person under fear of injury, it must appear that he has held out some threat to
do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future. If all that a person does is to
promise to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do and says that if the money is
not paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an offence of
extortion. [R.S. Nayak vs A.R. Antulay & Anr (Supreme Court)]
 - In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him in fear of injury.
Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that
the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of
injury. [Indrasana Kuer v Sia Ram Pandey, 1970 Cr LJ 647]

 The person put in fear of injury to himself or any other person must deliver
property/valuable security
- The essence of the offence of extortion lies in the actual delivery of possession of the
property by the person put in fear and the offence is not complete before such delivery.
[Labhshanker Keshavji And Anr. vs State (Gujarat High Court)]
- One among the ingredients of the offence is that the offender induces the person so put
in fear to deliver up the thing extorted. Even if the quantity demanded is paid after a few
days, it amounts to extortion. [Gursharan V. State of Punjab (SC)]
- In order to complete the act of extortion the person who was put in fear, must have been
induced to deliver the property. If the act of inducement caused by the wrongdoer should
bring forth its result at least by the victim consenting to deliver property even if actual
delivery does not take place due to any fortuitous circumstances which would constitute
extortion, but if it fails to produce the requisite effect, the act would remain only at the
stage of an attempt to commit extortion. In the instant case, even if the offence of
extortion is held to be not made out for want of delivery of the property at least, the
offence of attempt to commit extortion is clearly made out. [Biram Lal vs. State
(Rajasthan High Court]
- Merely taking signatures or thumb impressions of a person on blank papers, though
forcefully, will not amount to extortion. The rationale behind this is that such a blank
paper cannot be converted into any valuable property as per Section 383 of the IPC.
Further, one of the most important elements of the offence of extortion under Section
283 of the IPC is that any property or a valuable security must be delivered to any person
or it is to get anything signed or sealed which may be later converted into a valuable
security. Since any blank paper which merely has a signature or thumb impression of a
person cannot be converted into a valuable security, no offence u/s 383 is attracted.
[Lalit Vilasrao Thakare Vs. The State of Maharashtra. (Bombay High Court)]
 CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

1. SECTION 503 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm
to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to
omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS
The essential ingredients which constitute the offence u/s 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
are divided into two parts, which are mentioned for your perusal are as follows
i. the first part refers to the act of threatening another with injury to his person, reputation
or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested;
and
ii. the second part refers to the intent, with which the threatening is done, and it is of the
following two categories:
- the first is intent to cause alarm to the person threatened; and
- the second is to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or
to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat.
The aforementioned ingredients were observed by the Supreme Court of India in the cases of
Romesh Chandra Arora vs The State (SC) and Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (SC).

3. LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
a. Surinder Suri v. State of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana HC)
In this case, it was held that to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation under Section
503, IPC, threat must be one which can be put into execution by the person threatening and
must be made with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere vague allegations. (Sic.
utterances) by the accused that he is going to take revenge by false complaint cannot amount
to criminal intimidation. The facts in the case were that there were strained relations between
the accused and the complainant. The accused threatened to kill the complainant. The
accused were not armed. It was held that it cannot be said that the complainant felt
intimidated by the mere words without use of any weapon or show of criminal force. The
petition under Section 482 of the CrPC was allowed and the FIR was quashed, holding it to
be mala fide and offshoot of litigation spree.

b. Devi Lal v. State of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana HC)

In this case, it was held that where the threat is not immediate and no one is harmed nor any
intent to harm is alleged, the offence under Section 506, IPC will not be made out. In this
case, the accused had given the threat to the bride that she would be murdered in case she did
not bring Rs. 50,000/- for which they were to wait for one year. It was held that the threat
being not imminent, no offence of criminal intimidation was made out.

c. Usha Bala vs. State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana HC)

In this case, it was held that empty threats do not prima facie make out a case under Section
506, IPC.

d. Kanshi Ram v. State (Delhi HC)

In this case, it was held that mere threat causing no harm to the complainant did not constitute
the offence under Section 506, IPC. The facts in the said case were that the complainant had
stated in his statement that at the relevant time, the petitioner had exhorted his security
personnel to thrash the journalists. The learned Judge observed that the alleged threat had
caused no alarm to him. On the contrary, the circumstances of the case clearly go to show
that even after the alleged threat, the complainant or other media persons did not retrace their
steps. The mere threat was no offence. That being so, the threat alleged to have been given by
the petitioner does not fall within the mischief of Section 506, IPC.

e. Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (SC).

Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to
bring in the application of Section 503 of the IPC, 1860.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXTORTION AND CRIMINAL
INTIMIDATION

1. Difference in terms of Purpose

Criminal Intimidation: The immediate purpose of criminal intimidation is to threat
someone to do or omit an act, which he is not legally bound to do or desist or refuse to do an
act, which he is entitled to do legally.
Extortion: The immediate purpose of extortion is to obtain money, property, or any other
valuable security.

2. Difference in Terms of Result

Criminal Intimidation: In criminal intimidation, as such there is no delivery of money,
property, or any valuable security required.
Extortion: In extortion, money, property, or any such valuable securities is required to be
delivered.