The section that replaced IPC 383 to 389 — and more than doubled the punishment for ordinary extortion. Which of the seven sub-sections applies, why a threat that produced no payment can still be an offence, how extortion differs from theft and robbery, and where a hard demand for money crosses into crime.
Section 308 of the BNS is extortion — intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly inducing them to deliver property, a valuable security, or anything signed or sealed that can be turned into one. It replaced Sections 383 to 389 of the Indian Penal Code.
The punishment more than doubled. Ordinary extortion carried three years under Section 384 IPC. Under Section 308(2) BNS it carries seven. That single change matters more than the renumbering, and most pages do not mention it.
Every sub-section is cognizable, so an FIR should be registered. But bailability is not uniform, and it runs against intuition: 308(2), 308(4) and 308(5) are non-bailable, while 308(3), 308(6) and 308(7) are bailable — so two ten-year sub-sections are bailable and the seven-year general offence is not. None of it is compoundable.
A threat that produced no payment can still be an offence. Delivery of property is essential only to the sub-sections that punish extortion actually committed. The Supreme Court held in 2025 that for putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, delivery is not necessary.
Extortion is not theft. In theft the property is taken without consent; in extortion it is given — consent obtained by fear.
Seven sections of the Indian Penal Code became one section with seven sub-sections. The substance was carried over — with one significant exception.
The grading turns on two things: what was threatened, and whether property was actually delivered.
| Sub-section | Old IPC | What it covers | Punishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 308(1) | 383 | The definition of extortion | Definitional |
| 308(2) | 384 | Punishment for extortion | Up to 7 years, or fine, or both |
| 308(3) | 385 | Putting a person in fear of any injury in order to commit extortion | Up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| 308(4) | 387 | Putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion | Up to 7 years and fine |
| 308(5) | 386 | Committing extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt | Up to 10 years and fine |
| 308(6) | 389 | Putting a person in fear of an accusation of an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or ten years, in order to commit extortion | Up to 10 years and fine |
| 308(7) | 388 | Committing extortion by threat of such an accusation | Up to 10 years and fine |
The BNS does not follow the order of the old Code. Within each aggravated pair it puts the preparatory offence first and the completed offence second — the reverse of the IPC. The result is that several widely-read pages have the mapping inverted.
| What some pages say | What the punishments show |
|---|---|
| 308(4) = IPC 386, 308(5) = IPC 387 | IPC 386 carried ten years and IPC 387 carried seven. BNS 308(4) carries seven and 308(5) carries ten. So 308(4) = 387 and 308(5) = 386 |
| 308(2) = IPC 383 | 383 was the definition. The punishment section was 384, and that is what 308(2) corresponds to |
| Replaces | Sections 383 to 389 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 |
| In force from | 1 July 2024 |
| Cognizable? | Yes — every sub-section. An FIR should be registered |
| 308(2) — extortion | 7 years · non-bailable · Magistrate of the first class |
| 308(3) — fear of injury, to commit extortion | 2 years · bailable · any Magistrate · 3-year limitation |
| 308(4) — fear of death or grievous hurt, to commit extortion | 7 years · non-bailable |
| 308(5) — extortion by fear of death or grievous hurt | 10 years · non-bailable |
| 308(6) — fear of accusation, to commit extortion | 10 years · bailable |
| 308(7) — extortion by threat of accusation | 10 years · bailable |
| Compoundable? | No — not under any sub-section. A settlement needs a quashing petition |
| Limitation | None, except for 308(3) |
Two features of that table are worth saying out loud, because they surprise people and because at least one top-ranking page states them the wrong way round.
The ten-year sub-sections are bailable; the seven-year one is not. Sections 308(6) and 308(7), which deal with a threatened accusation, are bailable, while the general offence under 308(2) is non-bailable. That is faithfully carried forward from the old Code and it is not a drafting slip.
Nothing here can be compounded. Section 308 appears in neither compounding table. So even where the money has been returned and both sides want the matter closed, a Magistrate cannot end it. The route is a quashing petition to the High Court.
For extortion actually committed:
Note "injury" in the first element. It means harm caused unlawfully. That single word is what keeps ordinary hard bargaining, and the threat of lawful proceedings, outside the section.
This is the most useful thing on this page, and we could not find it correctly stated anywhere else.
The question people arrive with is: they threatened me but I never paid — is there a case? The answer depends entirely on which sub-section is in play.
| Delivery of property is essential | Delivery is not an ingredient |
|---|---|
| 308(2) — extortion | 308(3) — putting in fear of injury in order to commit extortion |
| 308(5) — extortion by fear of death or grievous hurt | 308(4) — putting in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion |
| 308(7) — extortion by threat of accusation | 308(6) — putting in fear of accusation in order to commit extortion |
"for prosecution under Section 387 IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary."
And on the structure of the provisions: "Section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of 385 IPC, not 384 IPC."
The converse is equally important. A High Court dismissed a case in 2025 where a sextortion allegation was framed under the general punishment section, because the complainant had not in fact paid anything in cash or in kind. The threat was real; the sub-section was wrong.
These three are constantly muddled, and the distinctions are clean once seen.
| Theft | Extortion | Robbery | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent | None — the property is taken | Present, but obtained by fear — the property is given | Either, plus force |
| What can be taken | Movable property only | Property, a valuable security, or a signature on something convertible into one | As for the underlying offence |
| Fear | Not required | Fear of injury — which may be of future harm | Fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint |
| Presence | Not required | Not required — a phone call will do | The offender is present |
The Sanhita itself puts the relationship plainly: in all robbery there is either theft or extortion. Extortion becomes robbery where the offender, being present, puts the person in fear of instant harm and thereby induces immediate delivery.
This is the question that brings most people to this page — from both sides of it.
Two words in the section do the work. The accused must act dishonestly, and the fear must be of injury, meaning harm caused unlawfully. A creditor who asserts a debt that is genuinely owed is not acting dishonestly; a person who says he will sue, or complain to the police about something that actually happened, is not threatening unlawful harm.
So a demand for a lawful sum, backed by a threat of lawful proceedings, is generally not extortion.
| Ordinarily not extortion | Crosses the line |
|---|---|
| Demanding a debt that is actually owed | Demanding a sum that is not owed, or grossly more than is owed |
| Saying you will file a civil suit or a complaint | Threatening violence, or damage to property |
| Saying you will report something that genuinely happened | Threatening to make an accusation you know to be false |
| Hard, even unpleasant, negotiation | Threatening to publish intimate images or private material |
| Pressing a claim you believe in | Demanding money with no claim of right at all — what people mean by rangdari |
One further point that surprises people: a High Court has held that pressure applied to make somebody give up a demand for repayment falls outside extortion — because nothing was delivered, and the dishonesty element failed. Unpleasant conduct is not automatically this offence.
The "but the money was genuinely owed" answer has a limit, and it is a hard one.
Where what is threatened is death or grievous hurt, the lawfulness of the underlying claim largely stops mattering. The means are independently criminal, and the offence under Section 308(4) is complete on the threat, without any payment. A lender with a perfectly good debt who sends people to threaten a borrower is not protected by the debt.
We are asked this constantly, most often in matrimonial and business disputes, and it deserves a careful rather than a confident answer.
Where a person threatens to accuse somebody of an offence in order to extract money, the sub-sections that fit are those dealing with a threatened accusation — 308(6) and 308(7) — rather than the general one, because the accusation threatened in these situations usually carries a heavy sentence. Those sub-sections carry ten years.
Because every sub-section is cognizable, an FIR should be registered. That is a real difference from criminal intimidation, where the ordinary form is not cognizable and the police will send you to the Magistrate.
| Step | What to do |
|---|---|
| 1 | Give a written complaint at the police station. If the offence took place in another area, it can still be registered as a zero FIR and transferred |
| 2 | Set out the demand, the threat, the dates, and whether anything was paid — and if it was, how |
| 3 | If registration is refused, send a written complaint by post to the DCP, keeping the despatch record |
| 4 | If still nothing, apply to the Magistrate on affidavit, showing you exhausted the previous step |
| 5 | A private complaint before the Magistrate is also available |
| Delhi court complexes |
|---|
| Tis Hazari · Karkardooma · Saket · Rohini · Dwarka · Patiala House · Rouse Avenue |
We are not giving a district-to-complex map on this page: two official pages disagree on the allocation. Confirm from the Delhi District Courts website, or by the police station concerned, before you travel.
A large and growing share of these cases now begin online: a video call, a recording made without the person's knowledge, and then a demand for money with a threat to send it to their contacts.
| Situation | What usually decides it |
|---|---|
| Moneylenders and recovery agents | Whether the leverage was lawful. Regulated lenders are also bound by the Reserve Bank's rules on the conduct of recovery agents — a complaint to the lender and the regulator often moves faster |
| Property and builder disputes | Whether the extortion allegation was there from the start or appeared later. See the next section |
| Business and partnership fallouts | Frequently charged alongside cheating and criminal breach of trust |
| Persons claiming official position | A demand backed by a claim to official authority may attract other provisions as well |
| At home | Demands for money backed by threats within a marriage engage the Domestic Violence Act, where economic abuse is expressly covered and a protection order can be obtained quickly |
Extortion is very often added to a civil dispute to give it weight, and the courts have said so in increasingly direct terms.
Quashing an extortion FIR arising out of a property dispute, the Court noted that "the subsequent introduction of allegations of extortion, demand of money and intimidation in the second complaint materially alters the nature and complexion of the dispute".
And: "the criminal process cannot be permitted to become a weapon of harassment and coercion in disputes concerning title over immovable property."
"criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters."
The arguments that work are structural:
Because Section 308 is not compoundable, a settlement cannot close the case before the trial court. Where the matter has genuinely been resolved, the route is a quashing petition — see Section 528 BNSS. Where the aggravated, non-bailable sub-sections are alleged, the first application is usually anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.
This page explains the law in general terms. It cannot tell you what to do about your own facts — only an advocate who has read your papers can do that. You can look through the advocates associated with Legal Space Services who practise in criminal matters, see their enrolment details and areas of practice, and send a consultation request. Searching and sending a request are free.
Because the sub-sections differ in sentence, in bailability and in whether delivery is needed, getting this right at the complaint stage matters more here than in almost any other section. Two questions settle it.
| What was threatened | Property was delivered | Nothing was delivered |
|---|---|---|
| Injury generally — damage, harm, exposure | 308(2) · 7 years · non-bailable | 308(3) · 2 years · bailable · 3-year limitation |
| Death or grievous hurt | 308(5) · 10 years · non-bailable | 308(4) · 7 years · non-bailable |
| An accusation of a very serious offence | 308(7) · 10 years · bailable | 308(6) · 10 years · bailable |
One further point on 308(3). It is the only sub-section carrying two years, which means it is the only one caught by the three-year limitation. A threat of ordinary injury that produced no payment therefore has a clock on it. The other five do not.
| Stage | What happens | Where it is really decided |
|---|---|---|
| FIR | Registered — every sub-section is cognizable. Zero FIR available if the offence took place elsewhere | Whether the complaint names the sub-section that matches the facts, and whether it says what was paid |
| Investigation | Statements, call records, bank trail, recovery of the money where possible | Whether the electronic evidence was preserved and certified properly |
| Arrest and bail | Depends on the sub-section — three are non-bailable | An accused facing 308(2), (4) or (5) will usually move for anticipatory bail first |
| Charge-sheet | Filed before the Magistrate | Whether the material supports the ingredient the sub-section actually requires |
| Quashing or discharge | Where the allegation is really a civil dispute, or an ingredient is missing on the face of it | Whether the extortion allegation was there from the beginning or was added later |
| Trial | Evidence and cross-examination, mainly on the demand and on what the complainant did at the time | Contemporaneous conduct. What somebody did in the week after the threat is worth more than what they say about it in the witness box |
It is extortion — intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly inducing them to deliver property, a valuable security, or anything signed or sealed that can be converted into a valuable security. It replaced Sections 383 to 389 of the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024.
Yes, and substantially. The general punishment for extortion went from three years under Section 384 IPC to seven years under Section 308(2) BNS. Anyone telling you the BNS merely renumbered the old sections is wrong about the most important part.
Seven. 308(1) defines it; 308(2) is the general punishment; and 308(3) to 308(7) are graded forms depending on what was threatened and whether property was actually delivered.
No. Criminal intimidation is the threat by itself. Extortion is a threat used to obtain something — and for some sub-sections the property must actually have been delivered. Where money changed hands because of a threat, the offence is extortion, not intimidation. See our page on Section 351 BNS.
No, and the difference is consent. In theft the property is taken without any consent at all. In extortion the victim hands it over — there is consent, but it was obtained by fear. Theft applies only to movable property; extortion extends to a signature on a document.
It can be — and this is the point almost every page gets wrong. Delivery of property is essential for some sub-sections and not for others. The Supreme Court held in 2025 that for the offence of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, delivery of property is not necessary. So a threat that produced no payment can still be an offence, under the right sub-section.
The ones that punish extortion actually committed — 308(2), 308(5) and 308(7). The ones that punish putting a person in fear in order to commit extortion — 308(3), 308(4) and 308(6) — are complete on the threat.
That the accused intentionally put the person in fear of injury; that he did so dishonestly; that the person delivered property or a valuable security, or signed or sealed something convertible into one; and that the delivery happened because of the fear. For the preparatory sub-sections, the last two are replaced by proof of the purpose behind the threat.
Harm caused unlawfully. That matters, because it is why a threat to take a step you are lawfully entitled to take is generally not extortion.
Asserting a genuine claim and saying you will pursue a lawful remedy is generally not extortion. The section requires the accused to have acted dishonestly, and to have put the person in fear of unlawful harm. A creditor demanding what is actually owed, backed by a threat of proceedings he is entitled to bring, is doing neither.
When the sum is not owed at all, or grossly exceeds what is owed; when the threatened consequence is itself unlawful — violence, or publishing intimate images; when the accusation threatened is one the person knows to be false; or when there is no claim of right at all, which is what people mean by rangdari.
Then the lawfulness of the underlying claim largely stops helping. Where what is threatened is death or grievous hurt, the means are independently criminal, and the offence under the aggravated sub-section is complete on the threat.
It may fall within the sub-sections dealing with a threat to accuse a person of an offence, rather than the general one — because the accusation threatened usually carries a heavy sentence. We should be candid: we have not found a Supreme Court decision squarely on this situation, so this is reasoning from the ingredients of the section rather than a settled holding. Put it to an advocate on your own facts.
A High Court has held that pressure applied to make somebody abandon a demand for repayment falls outside extortion — because nothing was delivered, and the dishonesty element failed. It may still be another offence.
Yes. Every sub-section of Section 308 is cognizable, so an FIR should be registered — unlike criminal intimidation, where the ordinary form is not. You can give the information at any police station as a zero FIR if the offence took place elsewhere.
It depends on the sub-section, and the pattern is counter-intuitive. 308(2), 308(4) and 308(5) are non-bailable. 308(3), 308(6) and 308(7) are bailable — so the ten-year sub-sections dealing with a threatened accusation are bailable while the seven-year general offence is not. That is carried forward from the old Code.
No. Section 308 does not appear in either compounding table, so it is not compoundable. Where a settlement has been reached, the only route is a petition to the High Court to quash — see our page on Section 528 BNSS.
Only for 308(3), which carries two years and is therefore subject to the three-year limitation. Every other sub-section carries more than three years, so no limitation applies.
The strongest arguments are structural. In 2026 the Supreme Court quashed an extortion FIR arising out of a property dispute, noting that allegations of extortion introduced later materially altered the nature of the dispute, and saying that the criminal process cannot be permitted to become a weapon of harassment and coercion in disputes concerning title over immovable property.
Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →
Tell us in one line what was demanded, what was threatened, and whether anything was paid. We will tell you which practice area it falls under and point you to an advocate who works in it. The first conversation costs nothing.