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

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 3

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 4

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 5

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.