Extortion

Posted on by user

Introduction

Extortion is a core offence against property and public order under the Indian Penal Code. In practice it sits at the intersection of criminal intimidation, theft/robbery, and offences by public servants; its prosecution and defence raise distinct factual and evidentiary issues. For litigators, mastery of the precise ingredients (fear + dishonest inducement + delivery/consent) and the available procedural remedies (bail, quashing, charge framing, plea strategies) determines outcomes in both trial and interlocutory stages.

Core Legal Framework

Statutory provisions in the IPC that define and govern extortion and closely related constructs are central to any practice on the subject:

  • Section 383, IPC — Definition of “extortion”:

  • Key text (essential idea): 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 to consent that any person may retain any property, is said to commit “extortion”.

  • Section 384, IPC — Punishment for extortion:

  • Punishment: Imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or fine, or both.

  • Related provisions that commonly appear with extortion charges:

  • Section 385 — Putting any person in fear of accusation of an offence, in order to commit extortion.
  • Section 386 — Putting any person in fear of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
  • Section 387 — Putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, to commit extortion.
  • Section 388 — Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.
  • Sections 390–392 — Robbery/attempted robbery (distinguish from extortion).

  • Section 503 — Criminal intimidation (a useful comparator to clarify differences).

  • Procedural law: CrPC provisions are engaged at multiple points — FIR registration (Sec. 154), arrest (Secs. 41–60), bail practice, charge-sheeting, and the power of High Courts/Supreme Court to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Practical Application and Nuances

A practitioner must dissect an extortion case along two analytic axes: (A) legal ingredients to be proved, and (B) the real-world means by which prosecution or defence establishes or undermines those ingredients.

A. Ingredients — what prosecution must establish
1. Actus reus: An act which intentionally puts the victim in fear of injury — injury may be to the person, to another, to reputation, or to property (the manner of apprehended injury is relevant).
2. Mens rea (dishonesty): The accused must have acted dishonestly — i.e., intention to obtain property wrongfuly by inducing fear.
3. Causal inducement: The fear caused must have induced the victim to deliver property or consent to retention of property by some person. Mere threats without any delivery or consent do not constitute extortion (they may constitute criminal intimidation).
4. Delivery/consent: There must be actual delivery or consent to part with property. If the victim parts with property voluntarily for other reasons (e.g., payment of a lawful debt), it is a strong defence.

B. Common fact-patterns and how they are litigated
1. Phone/WhatsApp threats demanding money:
– Prosecution: Rely on call logs, voice messages, contemporaneous complaint, witness testimony, and recovery of money (traceable bank transfers).
– Defence: Challenge identification of caller, assert extortionate demand was a negotiated settlement, or claim payments were voluntary or in discharge of debt. Forensic call analysis and CDRs become critical.

  1. Threat to reveal private information (blackmail):
  2. Prosecution must prove the disclosure threat caused delivery/consent to transfer property. Show chronology: threat → victim fear → agreed payment or handing over of documents → receipt by accused.

  3. Defence may argue the alleged “consent” was to avoid publicity, not induced by actionable fear, or that the material was surrendered as part of an agreed commercial arrangement.

  4. Extortion by a public servant or in connection with public duty:

  5. May attract additional charges (Prevention of Corruption Act) and different evidentiary tools (official records, departmental enquiries). Preserve documentary evidence (files, orders) to rebut a claim that demands were official requisitions rather than extortion.

  6. Threats involving accusation of a crime:

  7. These overlap with Sections 385–388: where the accused threatens to accuse of an offence to compel delivery, that constitutes a specific, often more serious, variant. Establishing that the accused had no reasonable ground for such threatened accusation strengthens prosecution.

C. Evidence to focus on
– Victim’s contemporaneous complaint (time-stamped messages, written complaints, ledger entries).
– Direct communications (letters, SMS/WhatsApp messages, voice notes, emails).
– Electronic traces: CDRs, IM metadata, bank transfers, UPI logs, ATM CCTV.
– Recovery of property and panchnama; chain of custody for recovered money/goods.
– Witness testimony corroborating sequence (e.g., who delivered money, whether there was visible fear).
– Expert or forensic evidence to establish authorship of messages or voice identification when disputed.
– Behavioural/contextual evidence: sudden payment patterns, threats repeated across time.

D. Distinguishing related offences (practical lines to argue)
– Extortion vs Criminal Intimidation (Sec. 503): Intimidation may be present even without delivery of property. Extortion requires dishonest inducement to part with property.
– Extortion vs Robbery: Robbery involves taking property by putting or seeking to put a person in fear of death or hurt at the time of taking — robbery is a more violent, immediate dispossession; extortion is induced consent by fear.
– Extortion vs Honest claim: If accused had a bona fide claim to the property (e.g., outstanding debt) and demanded payment, this can negate dishonesty. Scrutinize whether the accused believed in a legal right to the property.

Landmark Judgments

  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335:

  • Although not a case about extortion per se, Bhajan Lal is landmark for the criteria permitting quashing of FIRs under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court enumerated categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed — for example, where allegations, even if true, do not constitute a prima facie offence or where allegations are mala fide or where investigation suggests no evidence. Practitioners defending extortion cases frequently seek quashing when the accused can show that the complaint lacks material facts establishing extortion’s essential ingredients (fear + dishonest inducement + delivery).

  • Practical note on case-law strategy:

  • There is extensive High Court and Supreme Court jurisprudence on the fine line between extortion and intimidation, proof of inducement, and admissibility of electronic evidence. When seeking to quash or obtain bail in extortion matters, cite Bhajan Lal and later decisions applying its categories to non-bailable property offences.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

For Prosecutors
– Build a tight chronology: time-stamped communications showing threat → fear → transfer.
– Establish identification of the accused early (telecom forensics, witness IDs).
– Preserve digital evidence under Section 65B concerns: ensure collection, seizure, and preservation comply with law for admissibility.
– Consider charging under appropriate aggravated provisions (Secs. 387/388/386) where threats of death/grievous hurt or false accusations increase culpability.
– If accused is a public servant, coordinate departmental affidavits and orders to prevent destruction of official records.

For Defence Counsel
– Attack one or more essential ingredients:
– No fear: Show the complainant was not credibly afraid; e.g., payments were delayed, there was prior negotiation, or the complainant promptly moved to law enforcement.
– No inducement: Demonstrate that the transfer was voluntary or in discharge of a legal obligation.
– No dishonest intent: Prove bona fide belief in claim to property (documents, earlier correspondence).
– Challenge identification and authenticity of electronic evidence (establish chain of custody; raise 65B objections if necessary).
– Consider early interlocutory remedies:
– Anticipatory bail or regular bail: emphasise nature of offence and lack of violence (where applicable).
– Quashing under Section 482 CrPC: invoke Bhajan Lal categories where complaint lacks prima facie case or is blatantly malicious.
– Plea negotiation: Extortion under s.384 is generally not among the most serious offences; in suitable cases plea bargaining may be explored, subject to statutory limitations and court discretion.
– Settlement attempts: Note that s.384 is ordinarily non-compoundable (check Section 320 CrPC and current judicial interpretation). If a settlement is being contemplated, advise the client about limits and the necessity of legal sanction for compounding where permitted.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– For prosecution: Relying purely on victim testimony without corroboration where identity of accused is disputed — leads to acquittal or quashing.
– For defence: Framing arguments solely on technicalities without addressing the factual documentary trail (bank transfers, messages).
– Both sides: Underestimating digital-evidence rules; failure to authenticate and preserve electronic material is fatal.

Checklist — Quick practical steps at the first appearance
– Prosecution: File FIR with precise chronology; seize devices; obtain interim preservation orders for telecom/electronic data; lodge complaints under aggravated sections if threats serious.
– Defence: Obtain copies of FIR/charge-sheet; move for anticipatory bail if arrest imminent; send legal notice if factual negotiations may resolve; file application for disclosure of prosecution’s electronic evidence early.

Conclusion

Extortion under Sections 383–384 IPC is a fact-sensitive offence that hinges on establishing both fear and dishonest inducement leading to delivery or consent to retain property. Successful prosecution requires contemporaneous documentary/electronic proof tying the accused to the threats and the transfer; successful defence commonly rests on undermining the causal link (fear → delivery) or proving a bona fide claim to the property. Procedurally, early steps — preservation of digital evidence, properly framed FIRs, and strategic use of interlocutory remedies (anticipatory bail, quashing) — shape outcomes. For practitioners, the practical maxim is simple: treat extortion as a documentary and chronology case; gather or impeach the trail that connects threat to transfer, and plan procedural moves with that trail in mind.