Summary and Analysis of M/s. Balaji Traders vs State of U.P. & Anr. (2025 INSC 806)

Case Details

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Citation: 2025 INSC 806

• Judges: Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ.

• Appeal: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3159/2025

• Outcome: High Court’s quashing order set aside; complaint proceedings restored.

Background

1. Complaint: Prof. Manoj Kumar Agrawal (proprietor of M/s. Balaji Traders) alleged that Sanjay Gupta (accused) and three armed men threatened him on 22nd May 2022 to shut his betel nut business unless he paid ₹5 lakh/month. Upon refusal, they assaulted and attempted to kidnap him.

2. Legal Proceedings:
   Trial Court: Issued summons under Section 387 IPC (extortion by threat of death/grievous hurt) after finding prima facie evidence.
   High Court: Quashed the summons, holding that no property was delivered (essential for extortion under Section 383 IPC) and termed the complaint a "counterblast" to ongoing trademark disputes.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Interpretation of Section 387 IPC

• Key Distinction:
  Section 383 IPC: Requires actual delivery of property under threat (extortion).
  Section 387 IPC: Punishes threat of death/grievous hurt to commit extortion, even if no property is delivered (Radha Ballabh v. State of U.P., 1995; Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996).

• Legislative Intent: Section 387 targets the process of extortion, not just its completion (Somasundaram v. State, 2020).

2. Errors in High Court’s Judgment

• Misapplication of Law: High Court conflated Sections 383 and 387, erroneously requiring property delivery for Section 387.

• Overreach: Examined defense materials (e.g., trademark disputes) at the quashing stage, violating State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) guidelines.

3. Quashing Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC

• Limited Scope: Quashing is permissible only if allegations prima facie disclose no offence (Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, 2021).

• Prima Facie Case: Complainant’s allegations (armed threat, demand for money) met Section 387 ingredients.

Judgment

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding:
  The complaint disclosed prima facie offences under Section 387 IPC.
  High Court erred in importing Section 383’s requirements into Section 387.

• Direction: Trial Court to expedite proceedings.

Key Precedents Relied On

1. Radha Ballabh v. State of U.P. (1995) – Conviction under Section 387 sans property delivery.

2. Bhajan Lal (1992) – Grounds for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

3. Neeharika Infrastructure (2021) – Quashing as an exception, not rule.

Final Order: High Court’s quashing order overturned; trial proceedings revived.

Conclusion

The judgment clarifies that Section 387 IPC criminalizes threats to extort, irrespective of property delivery. High Courts must avoid conflating distinct offences and adhere to strict prima facie scrutiny under Section 482 CrPC.