Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion
Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 385, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 308 Extortion Close, with changes 78%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
In Re: vs Indian Woman Says Gang-raped on Orders
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The State has a constitutional duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the freedom of choice in marriage and protection from sexual violence. When the State fails to prevent grave violations of these fundamental rights such as gang rape, the State is duty bound to provide substantial monetary compensation to the victim for rehabilitation and must implement systemic reforms including police vigilance, mandatory victim protection procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code, and long-term victim rehabilitation. Panchayats and village councils have no legal authority to order, authorize, or participate in violence or sexual assault, and such acts constitute unlawful assemblies and barbaric crimes deserving harsh punishment. The investigating agency must comply with mandatory procedural requirements including recording rape FIRs and victim statements exclusively by women police officers, invoking all applicable criminal sections, obtaining and certifying all evidence properly, and investigating larger conspiracies if any.
On this section: Court held this offence should have been invoked as the panchayat was using threats and coercion; instructed investigating agency to consider this for charge sheet
-
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a dead body is recovered and subjected to autopsy and necrotomic evidence is adduced to establish cause of death, failure to prove that the dead body is of the person allegedly murdered by the accused must have fatal and adverse consequence on the prosecution case. The case of an untraceable dead body is different from a case where the dead body is traced and evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the deceased. In the latter case, upon failure to prove identity, the prosecution cannot be permitted to advance a case that the dead body is untraceable. However, this principle applies only when the prosecution itself has put forth the case that the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, when once identification of the dead body as that of the alleged victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it cannot be said that the dead body is that of the alleged victim, either for holding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC. (Justice C.T. Ravikumar's view, which represents the majority position on this specific issue)
On this section: Putting person in fear of injury to commit extortion; charged but not separately discussed
-
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 attempt to commit extortion - imprisonment up to 2 years, applied in this case
-
Kotha Venkata Ramesh Krishna vs The Station House Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a private complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC is not supported by a sworn affidavit as mandated by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava, and where the allegations do not prima facie disclose commission of offence against the accused (particularly where essential ingredients like 'public view' for SC/ST Act offences or direct involvement for extortion charges are absent), and where the proceedings appear to be initiated with mala fide intention to harass, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
On this section: Offence of putting person in fear of injury to commit extortion; requires direct involvement in putting person in fear
-
Rani Sagar Marne vs The State of Maharashtra Through Kothrud pstn
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving prima facie evidence of active participation in large-scale, well-organized criminal conspiracies involving extortion, threats, and forced property transfers, bail should be denied pending investigation when there is a reasonable possibility that release of the accused would result in threats to witnesses or further criminal activity, even if the accused is a woman with dependent children and is pursuing education, because witness protection and investigation integrity take precedence over personal hardship in such serious criminal matters.
On this section: Section 385 (extortion), Section 386 (extortion by putting in fear of death or grievous hurt), Section 388 (extortion by threat of accusation), Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), Section 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication), Section 34 (common intention) - These sections define the substantive offences charged against the applicant and co-accused. The court analyzed the applicant's involvement under these provisions.
-
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: Putting person in fear of injury by gesture, preparation or threat - Whoever, with intent to cause fear or knowing that he is likely thereby to cause fear in any person, makes any gesture, preparation or threat of such a nature that, for the time being, by such gesture, preparation or threat, he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely thereby to cause, fear in that person, that he shall be instantly hurt by some instrument, object or means in the possession or under the control of that person making the gesture, preparation or threat
-
Roop Ram Sharma vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a co-accused with a similar or graver role is granted bail, the principle of parity applies to the remaining accused provided their role is not more severe.
On this section: Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion.
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.
Questions about Section 385
What have the courts held on Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code?
In Re: vs Indian Woman Says Gang-raped on Orders (28 Mar 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Court held this offence should have been invoked as the panchayat was using threats and coercion; instructed investigating agency to consider this for charge sheet. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 385 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 385, section 385 IPC, section 385 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 385 punishment and ipc 385 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with In Re: vs Indian Woman Says Gang-raped on Orders (28 Mar 2014).
What should I read with Section 385 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 385 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 385, 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.