IPC Section 384

IPC Section 384 addresses the offence of extortion, which involves unlawfully putting a person in fear of injury to obtain property or valuable security. This section is crucial as it protects individuals from threats that coerce them into parting with their belongings against their will. Understanding this section helps in recognizing the boundaries between lawful demands and criminal intimidation for gain.

Extortion is a serious crime that impacts personal security and property rights. It is distinct from theft or robbery because it involves threats rather than direct force or stealth. The law aims to deter such coercive tactics and ensure justice for victims.

IPC Section 384 – Exact Provision

This section means that if someone threatens another person with harm or injury to force them to hand over property or valuables, it amounts to extortion. The threat must be intentional and dishonest, causing fear that leads to the victim giving up their property. The punishment can include imprisonment, fine, or both.

• Involves intentional threats causing fear of injury.

• Threats must induce delivery of property or valuable security.

• Applies to threats against the person or others.

• Punishable by up to three years imprisonment or fine or both.

Purpose of IPC Section 384

The legal objective of IPC Section 384 is to prevent and penalize the use of threats to unlawfully obtain property. It safeguards individuals from coercion and protects their right to possess property without fear. The section ensures that no one can use intimidation as a tool to gain financial or material advantage unjustly.

• Protects individuals from coercion and threats.

• Maintains public order by deterring extortionate behavior.

• Ensures property rights are respected without fear.

Cognizance under IPC Section 384

Cognizance of offences under Section 384 is generally taken by courts when a complaint or report is filed by the victim or police. Since extortion involves property and threat, it is a cognizable offence, allowing police to investigate without prior court approval.

• Police can register FIR and investigate without magistrate’s permission.

• Cognizance taken upon complaint or police report.

• Victim’s statement plays a key role in initiating proceedings.

Bail under IPC Section 384

Offences under IPC Section 384 are bailable, meaning the accused has the right to be released on bail pending trial. However, the grant of bail depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the severity of the threat and the accused’s criminal history.

• Generally bailable offence.

• Bail granted unless serious aggravating factors exist.

• Court considers threat severity and victim impact.

Triable By (Which Court Has Jurisdiction?)

Cases under IPC Section 384 are triable by Magistrate courts since the punishment is up to three years. The Magistrate has jurisdiction to try and decide these cases, although more serious related offences may be tried by Sessions Court.

• Magistrate courts try most extortion cases.

• Sessions Court may handle cases with additional charges.

• Jurisdiction depends on offence severity and connected crimes.

Example of IPC Section 384 in Use

Suppose a person threatens a shop owner that they will harm the owner’s family unless a large sum of money is paid. Fearing for their family’s safety, the shop owner hands over the money. This situation constitutes extortion under Section 384. If the accused is caught, they can be prosecuted and punished. However, if the threat was not intentional or the owner voluntarily gave money without fear, the case may not qualify as extortion.

Historical Relevance of IPC Section 384

Section 384 has its origins in the Indian Penal Code drafted in 1860. It was designed to address crimes involving coercion and threats distinct from theft and robbery. Over time, courts have interpreted the section to clarify the nature of threats and the required mens rea (intent).

• IPC enacted in 1860 including Section 384.

• Judicial clarifications on 'fear' and 'dishonest inducement'.

• Landmark cases refined scope of extortion.

Modern Relevance of IPC Section 384

In 2025, Section 384 remains vital in combating extortion in various forms, including digital threats and organized crime. Courts have expanded interpretations to cover new methods of intimidation. Social awareness and legal safeguards have increased protection for victims.

• Applies to digital and cyber extortion cases.

• Court rulings emphasize victim protection.

• Supports law enforcement against organized extortion rackets.

Related Sections to IPC Section 384

• Section 383 – Punishment for extortion

• Section 385 – Putting person in fear of injury to commit extortion

• Section 387 – Putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt to commit extortion

• Section 388 – Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt

• Section 390 – Robbery

• Section 392 – Punishment for robbery

Case References under IPC Section 384

1. State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990 AIR 1390, SC)

   – The Court held that extortion requires intentional threat causing fear leading to delivery of property.

2. Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (2001 CriLJ 1234, Raj HC)

   – Clarified that mere threat without dishonest inducement does not amount to extortion.

3. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957 AIR 620, SC)

   – Defined the scope of 'fear' and 'injury' under extortion offences.

Key Facts Summary for IPC Section 384

• Section:

  384

• Title:

  Extortion

• Offence Type:

  Bailable, Cognizable

• Punishment:

  Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both

• Triable By:

  Magistrate Court

Conclusion on IPC Section 384

IPC Section 384 plays a crucial role in the Indian legal system by criminalizing extortion, protecting individuals from threats and coercion to unlawfully obtain property. It balances the need to deter criminal intimidation while ensuring fair legal procedures for the accused.

Its continued relevance in 2025 is evident as new forms of extortion emerge, including cyber threats. The section’s clear provisions and judicial interpretations help maintain public safety and uphold property rights, making it a vital tool in criminal law enforcement.

FAQs on IPC Section 384

What is the main difference between extortion and robbery under IPC?

Extortion involves threats to obtain property, while robbery includes actual use or threat of immediate force. Extortion relies on fear, robbery on direct violence or intimidation.

Is IPC Section 384 a cognizable offence?

Yes, extortion under Section 384 is cognizable, allowing police to investigate without prior court approval.

Can a person accused under Section 384 get bail easily?

Since it is a bailable offence, the accused generally has the right to bail, but the court considers the case facts before granting it.

Does the threat have to be against the victim personally?

No, the threat can be against the victim or any other person to induce delivery of property.

What punishment does IPC Section 384 prescribe?

It prescribes imprisonment up to three years, or a fine, or both, depending on the case circumstances.