Offence Of Extortion Not Made Out In Absence Of Delivery Of Property: Chhattisgarh HC
The offence of extortion under Indian law, focusing on the principle that the offence is not made out in the absence of delivery or parting with property, with reference to relevant case laws, including the Chhattisgarh High Court’s stance.
Offence of Extortion: Legal Framework
Extortion is defined under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It reads:
“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, is said to commit extortion.”
Key Ingredients:
Putting a person in fear of injury to themselves or another.
Dishonest inducement caused by such fear.
Delivery of property or valuable security to the offender or any other person.
Crucial Element: Delivery of Property
One essential element of extortion is that the person put in fear must actually deliver some property or valuable security to the offender or some other person.
Without the actual delivery or parting with property, the offence of extortion is not complete.
The mere threat or demand without the victim surrendering property does not constitute extortion under Section 383 IPC.
Chhattisgarh High Court’s Explanation
The Chhattisgarh High Court has consistently held that mere threat or demand by itself is insufficient to constitute extortion unless accompanied by delivery of property induced by such threat.
In the absence of delivery or parting with property, no offence of extortion is made out.
Leading Case Laws
Kanhaiyalal Agrawal vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 113
The Supreme Court observed that for extortion to be complete, the accused must obtain property dishonestly by inducing fear in the victim.
State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254
The Court emphasized that mere threat does not amount to extortion unless it results in actual delivery of property.
Sita Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, (1983) 4 SCC 515
It was held that without delivery of property or parting with property, the offence of extortion is not made out.
Chhattisgarh HC - State of Chhattisgarh vs. Basantlal Jangid (2014) Cr.L.J 3728 (Chhattisgarh)
The High Court observed that the offence of extortion under Section 383 IPC requires proof of actual delivery of property as a result of threat or fear. Merely alleging threat without delivery does not constitute extortion.
Summary
Extortion involves inducing fear to obtain property.
The actual delivery or parting with property must be caused by the fear induced.
Without delivery, it is only an attempt or threat, not extortion.
Courts, including the Chhattisgarh High Court, have consistently upheld this principle.
Mere demand or threat without delivery cannot sustain charges under Section 383 IPC.
RELATED Blog
0 comments