Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt
Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 386, 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
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.
-
W. Kalyani vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, only a man can be prosecuted for the offence of adultery. A woman cannot be prosecuted for adultery as the section expressly provides that the wife shall not be punishable even as an abettor. The mere fact that the appellant is a woman makes her completely immune to the charge of adultery. Additionally, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint, the charge of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC cannot be made out against the appellant. Therefore, criminal proceedings against a woman for adultery and wrongful restraint, when the allegations do not substantiate the charges, should be quashed.
On this section: Section 386 was cited in the original criminal complaint relating to extortion. While not directly analyzed in this judgment, it formed part of the original complaint against other accused.
-
W. Kalyani vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Under the current law as embodied in Section 497 IPC, only a man can be prosecuted for the offense of adultery. A woman cannot be prosecuted for adultery because the statute expressly uses masculine pronouns and gender-specific language ('he,' 'man') and explicitly provides that 'the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.' Therefore, a woman accused of adultery has absolute immunity from prosecution under this provision. Additionally, mere allegations of a woman accompanying and moving freely with another woman's husband, without more, do not constitute the offense of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, and such vague allegations without factual substance do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings.
On this section: Section 386 deals with extortion by putting a person in fear of wrongful restraint. This charge was applied in the original complaint related to alleged dowry demands under coercion.
-
Vidhayaram vs State of Rajasthan through P P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution fails to effect any recovery from the accused and the complainant cannot identify the accused in an identification parade, the High Court may grant regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, as the weakness of the prosecution's evidence at the bail stage justifies release pending trial.
On this section: Criminal intimidation; one of the charges against the petitioner
-
Ramdeo Verma& ORS. vs State of Bihar& ANR.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the time of framing charge or taking cognizance of an offence, an accused person has no right to produce any material or document. The right to be defended by a pleader of choice under Section 303 CrPC does not extend to producing documents at the inquiry stage. The settled law as pronounced by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi prohibits consideration of documents filed by accused at the inquiry stage, and the High Court can only consider such documents in rare and exceptional cases while exercising Section 482 jurisdiction.
On this section: Extortion - offence of obtaining signature on blank papers under threat
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.
-
… The learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out in his report dated 09.04.2021 that the party has provided reasons for selection of candidates, by referring to serious offences such as offences under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and portraying them as cases that are of a trivial nature. Shri Shailesh Madiyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 7 referred to written submissions dated 22.07.2021 and submitted that Form C-7 for one of its candidates was not …
-
… Two judgments have been cited before us which dealt with the interpretation of the words "not less than ten years". In Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2001) 5 SCC 34, the accused was charged with having committed offence punishable under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment whereof is a term of imprisonment which may extend to 10 years. This Court held that in a case where an offence is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more, the accused could be detained up to 90 days. The Court further held that the expression "not less than ten …
-
… further alleged that accused taken out Rs.20,000/- from the pocket of informant. 3) On 19/09/2012 informant Mohammad Abdul Raheman Haji Wali Mohammad reported the matter at Police Station,Yavatmal City and set criminal law in motion. 4) On the basis of above report the Crime No. 365/2012 punishable under Sections 147,148, 386 & 395 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Yavatmal City against accused. 5) The investigation of the crime was assign to P.W. No. 2 Satish Omkar Patil, the then Police Inspector of City Police Station, Yavatmal. The medical examination of the informant was done by the Medical Officer. …
Questions about Section 386
What have the courts held on Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code?
W. Kalyani vs State Tr. Insp. of Police (01 Dec 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Section 386 was cited in the original criminal complaint relating to extortion. While not directly analyzed in this judgment, it formed part of the original complaint against other accused. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2017.
How do I find court cases under Section 386 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 386, section 386 IPC, section 386 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 386 is bailable or not and ipc 386 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with W. Kalyani vs State Tr. Insp. of Police (01 Dec 2011).
What should I read with Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. 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 386 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 386, 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.