Question

According to the Supreme Court's analysis in the judgment, Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with:

• A. The actual commission of the act of extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.
• B. The punishment for a completed act of extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.
• C. The process or stage prior to committing extortion, specifically putting or attempting to put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion.
• D. A lesser, non-aggravated form of extortion defined in Section 383 IPC.
• A. Section 387 IPC requires the use of firearms, whereas Section 383/384 IPC does not.
• B. Section 383/384 IPC deals with the actual commission of extortion and requires delivery of property, while Section 387 IPC deals with the process (putting a person in fear) and does not require the delivery of property.
• C. Section 383/384 IPC is an aggravated form of Section 387 IPC.
• D. Section 387 IPC involves only an attempt, while Section 383/384 IPC involves a completed offence.
• A. The transfer of at least Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant to the accused.
• B. The use of rifles, a specific type of weapon.
• C. Putting the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, such as by pointing a gun and demanding Rs. 5 lakhs per month.
• D. The existence of pending litigation regarding Trademark and Copyright claims.
• A. Penal statutes must be given a wide and flexible interpretation to cover all intended mischief.
• B. Courts are competent to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the Legislature to carry out the intention of the Legislature.
• C. If two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the Court must lean towards the construction that imposes the maximum penalty.
• D. If two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the Court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty.
• A. Dismiss the appeal and uphold the High Court's quashing order.
• B. Dismiss the appeal but modify the charge to Section 384 IPC.
• C. Allow the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restore the proceedings of Complaint case to the file of the Trial Court.
• D. Allow the appeal and transfer the case to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks what Section 387 of the IPC deals with, based on the analysis provided in the comprehension passage.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage draws a clear distinction between sections dealing with the completed act of extortion and sections dealing with the preparatory acts. It explicitly states:


"...whereas Sections 385, 387 and 389 IPC seek to punish for an act committed for the purpose of extortion even though the act of extortion may not be complete and property not delivered."

"Section 387 IPC provides for a stage prior to committing extortion, which is putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt 'in order to commit extortion'..."
This directly corresponds to option (C). Options (A) and (B) describe a completed act of extortion, which the passage attributes to other sections like 384, 386, and 388. Option (D) is incorrect as the passage identifies S. 387 as an aggravated form of S. 385, not a lesser form of S. 383.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Based on the direct statements in the passage, Section 387 IPC deals with the process or stage prior to the commission of extortion.

Answer 2

Section 387 IPC needs to be placed correctly among the extortion-related provisions. Checking each option against the statutory scheme shows what the section actually covers.

1. The actual commission of extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt: The completed offence of extortion by causing such fear, where property is actually delivered, is punished under Section 386, not Section 387. So this describes the wrong provision.
2. The punishment for a completed act of extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt: Again, this is the role of Section 386, an aggravated but completed form of extortion, not Section 387.
3. The process or stage prior to committing extortion, specifically putting or attempting to put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion: Section 387 criminalises the act of instilling that fear "in order to" commit extortion, even before any property changes hands. It targets the preparatory stage, mirroring how Section 385 punishes putting a person in fear generally for the purpose of extortion, just at the aggravated fear-of-death-or-grievous-hurt level. This matches the actual text and purpose of the section.
4. A lesser, non-aggravated form of extortion defined in Section 383 IPC: Section 387 is an aggravated form (fear of death or grievous hurt) built on Section 385, not a lesser form of the basic definition in Section 383, so this gets both the direction and the base section wrong.

Section 387 sits at the preparatory stage of extortion, punishing the creation of a specific, serious fear before extortion is completed, which is exactly what the third option describes.

Therefore, the correct answer is the process or stage prior to committing extortion, specifically putting or attempting to put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the key difference between the offence of extortion (S. 383/384) and the offence under S. 387, as explained in the passage.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage highlights this difference throughout.


It says Sections 383, 384, 386, and 388 "deal with the actual commission of an act of extortion". The definition of extortion in S. 383 requires dishonestly inducing the delivery of property.
In contrast, it says Sections 385, 387, and 389 punish an act "even though the act of extortion may not be complete and property not delivered."
Therefore, the core difference is that S. 383/384 requires the completed offence, including delivery of property, while S. 387 punishes the preparatory act of putting in fear, regardless of whether property is delivered.
This distinction is perfectly captured in option (B). Option (D) uses the word 'attempt', which is a specific legal term, while the passage describes it as a 'stage prior' or 'process'. Option (B) is a more accurate summary of the passage's explanation. Option (C) is incorrect; S. 387 is an aggravated form of putting in fear (S. 385), not the other way around. Option (A) is not mentioned in the passage.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The fundamental distinction is between the completed offence requiring delivery of property (S. 383/384) and the preparatory offence that does not (S. 387).

Answer 4

The core difference between these provisions can be pinned down by checking what each option claims against what the two sets of sections actually require.

1. Section 387 requires firearms, Section 383/384 does not: Neither provision names a particular weapon as an ingredient. Fear of death or grievous hurt can be created with or without a firearm, so this claim about a firearm requirement is simply not part of either section.
2. Section 383/384 requires delivery of property and deals with the completed act, while Section 387 deals with the process and does not require delivery: Section 383 defines extortion as dishonestly inducing delivery of property, making delivery central to the completed offence in 383/384. Section 387, by contrast, is satisfied once a person is put in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, whether or not any property is ultimately handed over. This tracks the real statutory divide between the completed offence and the preparatory one.
3. Section 383/384 is an aggravated form of Section 387: The relationship runs the other way. Section 387 is the aggravated form built on Section 385's basic "putting in fear" offence, not on 383/384, so this option reverses the hierarchy.
4. Section 387 involves only an attempt, Section 383/384 involves a completed offence: Section 387 is a complete, standalone offence in itself once fear is created for the purpose of extortion, it is not merely an "attempt" to commit extortion in the technical sense, so labelling it an attempt understates what the section actually punishes.

The real dividing line is whether property has to change hands: 383/384 needs a completed transfer, 387 does not, since it punishes the fear-creating step itself.

Therefore, the correct answer is Section 383/384 IPC deals with the actual commission of extortion and requires delivery of property, while Section 387 IPC deals with the process (putting a person in fear) and does not require the delivery of property.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the core ingredient of an offence under Section 387 IPC, which the court would look for in a complaint to establish a prima facie case.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage itself defines the offence under Section 387: "...putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt 'in order to commit extortion'...". This is the essential ingredient, or *actus reus* and *mens rea* combined.
Let's analyze the options:

(A) The transfer of at least Rs. 5 lakhs...: This is incorrect. As established, Section 387 does not require the delivery of property.
(B) The use of rifles...: While pointing a gun can be the means to put someone in fear, the use of a specific weapon is evidence, not the legal ingredient itself. The ingredient is the creation of fear of death or grievous hurt.
(C) Putting the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt...: This option perfectly describes the essential legal ingredient of the offence as explained in the passage and the section itself. The examples given (pointing a gun, demanding money) are classic illustrations of how this offence is committed.
(D) The existence of pending litigation...: This might be the motive or background of the dispute, but it is not an ingredient of the criminal offence of extortion under S. 387.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The minimum essential ingredient for a prima facie case under Section 387 IPC is the act of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt with the intention of committing extortion.

Answer 6

The question asks for the minimum ingredient the complaint needed to disclose for Section 387 IPC to be prima facie made out. Testing each option against what the section actually demands narrows this down.

1. Transfer of at least Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant to the accused: Since Section 387 does not require delivery of property at all, a specific minimum amount transferred cannot be its essential ingredient. Any figure mentioned in the facts is incidental detail, not a legal requirement.
2. Use of rifles, a specific type of weapon: The section does not name any particular weapon. A firearm can be the means used to create fear, but the ingredient is the fear itself, not the specific tool used to cause it, so this cannot be the essential requirement.
3. Putting the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, such as by pointing a gun and demanding a monthly sum: This is exactly the conduct Section 387 criminalises, creating a fear of death or grievous hurt with the specific purpose of extorting property. Whatever the exact means (a gun, a threat, intimidation), once this fear is shown to have been created for that purpose, the offence is made out.
4. Existence of pending litigation over trademark and copyright claims: This might explain why the accused wanted to pressure the complainant, but a motive or backdrop dispute is not itself an ingredient of the criminal offence, the offence turns on the act of creating fear, not on why it was created.

Among the four, only putting the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt for the purpose of extortion is the legal ingredient the statute actually requires, the rest are either irrelevant details or background facts.

Therefore, the correct answer is putting the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, such as by pointing a gun and demanding Rs. 5 lakhs per month.

Answer 7

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
This is a general legal knowledge question asking for the established rule of interpretation for penal (criminal) statutes.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The cardinal rule for interpreting penal statutes is the "rule of strict construction." This rule has several facets, but a primary one is the principle of lenity. It means that if a penal provision is ambiguous and can be interpreted in two reasonable ways, the court must adopt the interpretation that is more favorable to the accused.
Let's evaluate the options:

(A) and (B): These describe a liberal or purposive construction, which is generally applied to social welfare legislation, not penal statutes. Penal statutes are construed strictly.
(C): This is the opposite of the correct principle. The court would never lean towards the maximum penalty in case of ambiguity.
(D): This statement accurately describes the rule of strict construction in favor of the accused. If there is ambiguity, the benefit of the doubt in interpretation goes to the subject, favoring a construction that avoids the penalty.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The well-settled principle is that penal statutes must be strictly construed, and if two reasonable interpretations are possible, the one more lenient to the accused must be preferred.

Answer 8

This question tests the general rule courts use to interpret a criminal statute when its wording can reasonably support more than one reading. Checking each option against that settled rule of construction shows which one is correct.

1. Penal statutes must be given a wide and flexible interpretation to cover all intended mischief: A wide, purposive reading is the approach used for beneficial or social-welfare legislation, where courts try to cover every situation the law was meant to address. Criminal statutes are treated the opposite way, narrowly, because they take away liberty or impose punishment, so this option states the wrong approach.
2. Courts are competent to stretch the meaning of an expression to carry out legislative intention: "Stretching" a word beyond its natural meaning in a penal provision risks punishing conduct Parliament never clearly criminalised. Courts avoid doing this precisely because strict construction, not intention-guessing, governs penal statutes.
3. Where two constructions are possible, the court must lean towards the one imposing the maximum penalty: This is the reverse of the actual rule. No court leans toward the harsher reading merely because a wording is ambiguous, since ambiguity should never work against the accused.
4. Where two constructions are possible, the court must lean towards the one that exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one that imposes it: This is the rule of strict construction, also called the rule of lenity. If a penal provision genuinely admits of two reasonable readings, the benefit of that doubt goes to the person facing punishment, not to the prosecution.

Since criminal statutes are read strictly and in favour of the accused whenever real ambiguity exists, the correct principle is the one that prefers the reading that exempts, rather than penalises.

Therefore, the correct answer is if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the Court must lean towards the construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty.

Answer 9

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the final outcome of the case discussed in the passage.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
While the final order is not reproduced in the extract, we can infer the logical conclusion from the court's reasoning. The passage shows the Supreme Court conducting a detailed analysis to distinguish between different sections of extortion and clarifying the ingredients of Section 387. The last sentence says, "we proceed to analyze the essentials of both Sections, i.e., 383 and 387 IPC, the High Court dealt with." This implies that the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in its analysis, likely by quashing the proceedings. When the Supreme Court finds that a High Court has wrongly quashed a criminal complaint where a prima facie case exists, the standard procedure is to set aside the High Court's order and allow the trial to proceed.


(A) and (B): Dismissing the appeal would mean the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, which contradicts the corrective tone of the analysis.
(C): This is the most logical outcome. By allowing the appeal and setting aside the quashing order, the Supreme Court would be correcting the High Court's error and ensuring that the complaint is tried on its merits, as a prima facie case was made out.
(D): Transferring for a fresh hearing is less likely than simply restoring the original trial court proceedings.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Given the detailed analysis establishing the applicability of Section 387, the most probable decision of the Supreme Court was to allow the appeal and restore the trial court proceedings.

Answer 10

The passage's closing line, that the Court proceeded "to analyze the essentials of both Sections... the High Court dealt with," signals that the Supreme Court was correcting the High Court's reasoning. Checking each option against that signal, and against what a Supreme Court does when it finds a High Court wrongly quashed a complaint, points to the answer.

1. Dismiss the appeal and uphold the High Court's quashing order: If the Court agreed with the High Court, there would be no need for the detailed corrective analysis distinguishing Sections 383, 384, and 387 that the passage describes. Dismissing the appeal would leave the quashing order (and the High Court's flawed reading of the sections) standing, which contradicts the corrective tone of the analysis.
2. Dismiss the appeal but modify the charge to Section 384 IPC: Modifying the charge to a different section while dismissing the appeal is not how appellate courts proceed when they find a complaint was wrongly quashed at the threshold, and nothing in the passage suggests the charge itself needed changing, only that the High Court misread the essentials of the sections.
3. Allow the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restore the proceedings to the trial court: Once the Supreme Court concludes that a prima facie case under Section 387 was made out and that the High Court erred in its reading of the provisions, the standard consequence is to undo the quashing and send the complaint back to be tried on its merits. This fits both the corrective analysis and the ordinary appellate remedy for a wrongly quashed complaint.
4. Allow the appeal and transfer the case to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits: A fresh hearing at the High Court would only be needed if the quashing petition itself required re-examination, but once the Supreme Court has already done the substantive analysis of the sections, the natural next step is restoring the original trial, not sending it back up to the High Court.

Given that the Supreme Court's own analysis found a prima facie case was disclosed and the High Court had erred, the logical and standard outcome is allowing the appeal and restoring the trial court proceedings.

Therefore, the correct answer is allow the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restore the proceedings of the complaint case to the file of the Trial Court.