LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/S Balaji Traders v. The State of U.P.

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 806Decided 5 Jun 2025
Crl.A. No.-002899-002899 - 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3159/2025)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Manoj Misra

Background

The complainant, proprietor of the firm M/s. Balaji Traders (a betel-nut leaves business), alleged that a rival running a business under the same name, with whom he had ongoing trademark/copyright litigation, along with associates carrying rifles, stopped him, threatened to shut down his business unless he paid Rs.5 lakh per month, and beat and attempted to kidnap him when he refused. After police did not register an FIR, he filed a private complaint, and the Trial Court found a prima facie case and summoned the accused under Section 387 IPC (putting a person in fear of death/grievous hurt in order to commit extortion). The Allahabad High Court quashed the summoning order, reasoning that since no money or property was actually delivered, the essential ingredient of "extortion" (Section 383 IPC) was missing, so no offence under Section 387 IPC could stand either.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by relying on a precedent dealing with Section 384 IPC (punishment for actual extortion, which does require delivery of property) rather than Section 387 IPC, which criminalises putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion: an offence that is complete upon the threat itself, regardless of whether money or property actually changed hands. Since the complaint prima facie disclosed both that the complainant was threatened with death by armed men and that this was done to pressure him to pay Rs.5 lakh, the ingredients of Section 387 IPC were made out even though no payment occurred. The Court further rejected the argument that the case was a "counterblast" to the accused's own trademark litigation, without going into the merits of the underlying dispute, and restored the complaint and summoning order, directing the parties to appear before the Trial Court.

Lesson Learnt

Under Section 387 IPC, the mere act of threatening someone with death or grievous hurt to extract money or property is itself a punishable offence: a criminal case for this specific threat need not fail simply because the victim never actually paid up, unlike a completed extortion charge which does require delivery of property.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case