Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of extortion
Section 389: Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Putting or trying to put a person in fear of an accusation of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or up to ten years, to commit extortion, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to ten years, and a fine. If the accusation is under section 377, it can be punished with imprisonment for life.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit, an offence punishable with death or with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with [imprisonment for life].
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 389
-
M/s Balaji Traders v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
Whether the High Court was justified in observing that since no offence of extortion u/s.383 IPC is made out, consequently, no offence u/s.387 IPC would be made out.
- Amrish Kumar Mishra & Ors v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Mohd Ilyas v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Parvez Ahmed v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Abdul Muqeet v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Sanjay Kansal v. Assistant Director, ED
- Surender Sodhi @ Shammi v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Akhilesh Mishra v. State (The NCT of Delhi)
- Naresh Mahato v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Sanjay Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Akhilesh Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Vinod Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Darshan Harish Joshi v. State(Nct of Delhi)
- Devender Dubey v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
-
Pavana Dibbur v. The Directorate of
Whether the offence u/s.120B, IPC included in Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can be treated as a scheduled offence even if the criminal conspiracy alleged is to commit an…
- Akhilesh Mishra v. State (Nct of Delhi )
- Harish Tiwari v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Darshan Harish Joshi v. The State Govt of NCT Delhi
- Preeti Kaushik & Ors v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Kapil Taneja (In Jc) v. State, (Govt. NCT of Delhi)
- Jitul Jentilal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Etc
- Swaati Nirkhi & Ors. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.
- Rajendra Khare v. Swaati Nirkhi and Ors.
- Abcd v. Union of India & Ors.
- Vikram Singh@ Vicky &Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. T. Appaiah and Another
- Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasiban
- Abdul Rehman Mahomed Yusuf v. Mahomed Haji Ahmad Agbotwala and Another
- Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra