Punishment for extortion
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for extortion. Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 384, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 308 Extortion Close, with changes 79%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Choudhury Parveen Sultana vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The protection afforded to public servants under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure does not extend to acts constituting criminal misuse or abuse of their official authority. Acts such as threatening, intimidating, and attempting to extort a complainant to withdraw a criminal complaint are not part of an investigating officer's official duties, regardless of whether they occur during the course of an investigation. Therefore, a public servant accused of such criminal misconduct is not entitled to Section 197 CrPC protection, and a Magistrate may take cognizance of offences against such public servant without prior government sanction. Each case must be examined in its own factual circumstances to determine whether the alleged acts constitute performance of official duties or represent misuse and abuse of authority.
On this section: Sections under which the respondent was prosecuted for extortion and criminal intimidation. Court affirmed that these offences do not fall within the scope of protected official duties.
-
Rashida Kamaluddin Syed vs Shaikh Saheblal Maradn (d) Th. Lrs.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Upon the death of a complainant in a criminal case, the proceedings do not abate. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not expressly provide for abatement of inquiries and trials upon death of a complainant. Legal heirs of a deceased complainant can be validly permitted by the court to continue the criminal prosecution against the accused under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 495 of the old Code). This principle applies to all criminal cases based on the scheme of the Code and is not limited to cases triable by the Court of Session or cases involving any particular level of offence. Once such permission is granted by the court and is not challenged by the accused, it attains finality and cannot be subsequently challenged as illegal or unlawful.
On this section: Offences of extortion, criminal intimidation cited in the false counter-complaint filed by the daughter against the complainant
-
Vikas Kumar vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable when the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies available, particularly when seeking protection from arrest in criminal matters. The appropriate remedy in such cases is to seek anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS. The court will not intervene through writ jurisdiction when the petitioner has not exhausted or properly utilized the statutory remedies available to them.
On this section: Extortion and criminal intimidation - charges in FIR No. 135/2024 registered against the petitioner
-
Gangadhara Shastry vs State by Honnavara Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings against supplementary accused under Section 319 CrPC require more than prima facie case but short of conviction-level satisfaction. Mere professional advice by advocates or astrologers, family relationships, or general allegations of conspiracy without direct evidence of participation in the alleged extortion scheme do not constitute sufficient grounds to proceed against supplementary accused. Proceeding against such accused amounts to abuse of process of court and warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. However, if during trial evidence surfaces against them meeting the Section 319 CrPC threshold, trial court may summon them.
On this section: Extortion - demanding Rs. 3 crores with threats
-
Sushil Kumar vs C.b.i.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where the court is satisfied that there exists a possibility that the accused to be summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction must be based on material evidence and cannot be based on conjectural or speculative grounds. The court cannot use Section 311 CrPC to introduce an entirely new case theory different from the original FIR or initial statements of the complainant. An order summoning a new accused under Section 319 CrPC, which adversely affects the rights of a person not originally a party to the proceedings and who would have no opportunity to challenge it after final judgment, is not an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) CrPC and can be revised by the High Court.
On this section: Extortion - charges framed for allegedly obtaining signatures on blank papers through coercion
-
Dnyaneshwar Sitaram Karale vs State Of Mah.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person intentionally puts another person in fear of injury to reputation through threat of publishing defamatory content and dishonestly induces that person to deliver money or valuable security, the offense of extortion under Section 385 IPC is constituted. The term 'injury' in Section 383 IPC extends to injury to reputation and mind, not merely physical injury. The offense is complete even if the property is not actually transferred, as Section 385 applies to attempt to commit extortion. Defects in charge regarding non-specification of exact date and time do not vitiate conviction if they do not cause prejudice to the accused. Delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if it is explained and unavoidable. The misuse of press freedom and RTI Act to blackmail public servants is a serious antisocial offense that undermines democracy and the ability of public servants to discharge their duties.
On this section: Punishment for extortion - imprisonment up to 3 years
-
Aarif Khan @ Sanu vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial is ongoing and prosecution witnesses have testified that they were attacked and suffered injuries, the trial court does not act illegally or with perversity in refusing to alter charges from attempted murder and causing hurt to the lesser charge of extortion, particularly when the High Court should exercise judicial restraint and not examine the merits of witness depositions during the revision stage as such examination may influence the course of trial.
On this section: Extortion charge - sought by petitioners as alternative charge but rejected by trial court and upheld by High Court
-
Surendra Ram vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person accused of fraud and forgery offences, who has no criminal antecedents and against whom the investigation is complete, is entitled to bail on furnishing appropriate bail bond and sureties, as the grounds for continued detention are no longer present.
On this section: Extortion
-
Sanjay Babubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a revision application against an acquittal order, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence. The revision court can only examine whether the trial court committed any error in law or procedure, or acted illegally. If the trial court's appreciation of evidence is legal and based on proper consideration of admissible evidence without procedural flaw, the revision application cannot be allowed merely because the revision court might have appreciated the evidence differently. The High Court will not interfere with an acquittal order when it agrees with the trial court's reasoning.
On this section: Extortion - demanding property with threat of causing injury
-
Vijay Singh vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person with a history of criminal conduct and involvement in multiple prior criminal cases, particularly when such history demonstrates a pattern of habitual offending, is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code, as the criminal antecedents constitute sufficient grounds for denial of bail.
On this section: Extortion - related to the threat to release the child only if Bablu was handed over
-
Ram Nandan Prasad @ Lakhan Lal vs State of Bihar& ANR.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court will not quash a cognizance order at the stage of petition when the police has already submitted a chargesheet after investigation and the Magistrate has taken cognizance based on prima facie case for offences under extortion provisions of the Indian Penal Code, unless there are compelling reasons to do so or the documents placed on record clearly demonstrate absence of any criminal case.
On this section: Extortion - 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 any property or valuable security
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECT 1. The appellant is the complainant on whose complaint a First Information Report being Crime No.21 of 2021 (for short, 'the impugned FIR') was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 347, 504, 506, 116 and 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') as well as under Sections 23 and 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the 2007 Act'). 2nd to 5th respondents were shown as accused. The 2nd respondent is a son of the appellant. The 3rd respondent …
Questions about Section 384
What have the courts held on Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code?
Choudhury Parveen Sultana vs State of West Bengal (07 Jan 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Sections under which the respondent was prosecuted for extortion and criminal intimidation. Court affirmed that these offences do not fall within the scope of protected official duties. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 384, section 384 IPC, section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 384 in bns and ipc 384 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Choudhury Parveen Sultana vs State of West Bengal (07 Jan 2009).
What should I read with Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 308 (Extortion), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 384, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.