IPC 384 in the new BNS 2023

If you have been named in an FIR or notice under this section, the section number alone does not decide the outcome — the facts, the evidence and the procedure do. Many cases turn on procedural lapses, bail strategy and the exact ingredients of the offence.

Extortion is the offence of obtaining property through fear rather than through force or stealth, and the distinguishing feature is that the victim hands the property over. It covers everything from protection demands to threats to publish damaging material unless payment is made. Under the BNS the definition sits at Section 308(1) and the punishment at Section 308(2).

What the section requires

For the offence to be made out, these ingredients have to be established:

• the accused intentionally put a person in fear of injury to themselves or to another
• the accused thereby dishonestly induced that person to deliver property, or a valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which could be converted into a valuable security
• the delivery was made by the victim as a result of that fear

What changed from the IPC

The offence and the punishment are carried over unchanged: imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both. The structural change is consolidation. The IPC dealt with extortion and its aggravated forms across Sections 383 to 389; the BNS gathers them into Section 308, with the definition at 308(1), the ordinary punishment at 308(2) and the aggravated forms in the sub-sections that follow — putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, extortion by threat of accusation of an offence, and the related provisions each carrying substantially higher punishments.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

Extortion sits between theft and robbery and is distinguished from both by consent and immediacy. In theft under BNS 303 the property is taken without any consent at all. In extortion the victim delivers the property, but the consent is obtained through fear of injury, and that fear need not be of immediate injury. In robbery under BNS 309 the force or the fear of instant injury is used in committing the theft or extortion or in carrying away the property, and the immediacy is what elevates it. Criminal intimidation under BNS 351 involves a threat made to cause alarm or to compel an act, but it does not require that any property was actually delivered — where a threat is made and nothing is handed over, the offence is intimidation rather than extortion, though an attempt may be charged.

How the case proceeds

The offence is cognizable and non-bailable. Investigation focuses on the demand and on the delivery, which means the communications carrying the threat and the financial or documentary trail of what was handed over. Where the aggravated sub-sections are invoked — a threat of death or grievous hurt, or a threat to accuse someone of a serious offence — the punishment and the seriousness with which the case is treated rise considerably, so establishing which sub-section applies is the first step.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

The demand and the delivery are the two things that must be proved, and they are usually proved differently. The demand is established through messages, recordings, emails or the testimony of witnesses to it, and recordings are particularly valuable because the exact words determine whether a threat of injury was made. The delivery is established through the financial trail — bank transfers, cash withdrawal records, receipts, or the document said to have been signed. Where the prosecution alleges a course of payments, the pattern and timing of transfers is examined against the timing of the threats. The defence typically produces the underlying transaction to show that the payment had a lawful basis, so the documents recording any commercial or personal relationship between the parties are central to both sides.

How courts approach sentencing

Imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both, for the ordinary offence under Section 308(2). The aggravated forms carry substantially more, rising where the fear induced was of death or grievous hurt, or where the threat was to accuse the person of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years.

Defences that commonly apply

The most common defence is that the payment had a lawful basis — that it discharged a debt, settled a claim or completed a transaction — which defeats the dishonest inducement element. Where the accused was pressing a genuine claim, the fact that the demand was forceful does not make it extortion unless a threat of injury was made. Absence of delivery is a complete answer to the completed offence. Where the alleged threat is captured in messages, the completeness of the record matters, since an extract read in isolation frequently reads differently from the whole exchange. Where the complaint follows a commercial dispute that turned against the complainant, the sequence of events is routinely relied on.

How a case under this section typically progresses

The case begins with an FIR and an investigation directed at the communications and the money trail, which usually requires bank records and takes time. A charge sheet follows and trial proceeds before a magistrate for the ordinary offence. Because the offence is non-bailable, bail is contested early. Where the underlying relationship is commercial, parallel civil proceedings frequently run alongside, and applications to quash the FIR on the ground that the matter is a civil dispute given a criminal colour are common.

Documents worth gathering early

Preserve the complete message, email or call record containing the alleged demand, in original form on the original device rather than as extracts. Obtain bank statements covering the full period, since the pattern of payments is examined against the timing of the threats. Assemble every document recording the underlying relationship between the parties — the agreement, invoices, loan documents, acknowledgments of debt, or settlement correspondence — because whether the payment had a lawful basis is usually the decisive question. Where any document was signed under the alleged pressure, keep it together with anything showing the circumstances of signing.

Note on bail and cognizability. Whether an offence is cognizable, and whether it is bailable, is set by the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, not by the BNS section itself. Because that classification decides whether police can arrest without a warrant and how bail is approached, check it for your specific section with an advocate rather than relying on a general summary.

If you have been named under this section

The ingredient that most often fails is the connection between the fear and the delivery. Where money changed hands, the question is whether it was delivered because of a threat or for some other reason — a debt, a settlement, a commercial arrangement — and documents establishing the underlying relationship are usually the answer. Where a demand was made in the course of a genuine dispute over money owed, the line between a lawful demand and extortion turns on whether the threat was of injury and whether the claim was legitimate.

Common misunderstandings

"Extortion requires immediate violence."
It does not. The fear of injury need not be of instant injury; where it is, and force is used in the taking, the offence becomes robbery under BNS 309.

"Demanding money you are owed can be extortion."
A lawful demand for a legitimate debt is not extortion. The offence requires that the inducement was dishonest and that the delivery was procured by putting the person in fear of injury.

"Nothing needs to be handed over."
Delivery of property is an ingredient. Where a threat is made but nothing is delivered, the offence is criminal intimidation under BNS 351, or an attempt.

"The punishment increased under the BNS."
It did not. The maximum remains three years, exactly as under IPC 384. The aggravated forms in the later sub-sections carry more.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 308 — Extortion
• BNS 309 — Robbery (IPC 392)
• BNS 303 — Theft (IPC 379)
• BNS 351 — Criminal intimidation (IPC 506)

Which code applies to your case

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the change is not retrospective. The date the offence is alleged to have been committed decides which code governs it. An offence alleged to have occurred on or after 1 July 2024 proceeds under the BNS. An offence alleged to have occurred before that date continues to be investigated, tried, appealed and punished under the IPC, even where the FIR was registered later. Cases from the transition period frequently cite both numbering systems, which is why the old section number remains worth knowing.

Named under this section? Ask the free AI Advocate →

General information for understanding the IPC→BNS change, not legal advice. The BNS restructured many offences — confirm the exact section, sub-section and punishment with a licensed advocate.