How Criminal Intimidation Is Punishable Under IPC 506 section

Do you want to know How Criminal Intimidation Is Punishable Under the IPC 506 section? Then, read this article.

How Criminal Intimidation Is Punishable Under IPC 506 section
How Criminal Intimidation Is Punishable Under IPC 506 section


The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) has provisions for criminal intimidation under Sections 503 through 507. There are situations when the general public confuses criminal intimidation, violence, and extortion. The IPC, 1860 contains two provisions that define criminal intimidation: Section 503 and Section 507. These sections also specify the penalties for committing the crime of criminal intimidation.
Simply put, intimidation is the act of threatening someone in order to get them to act or respond in a certain way. Put another way, if you threaten someone, they will comply with your wishes and be forced to do action against their will or choose not to act at all in order to avert the threat. What is considered criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503. It’s crucial to grasp Section 503, which defines criminal intimidation, in order to comprehend the penalties for it under Section 506 of the IPC.

An explanation of the IPC, 1860 Section 503

According to Section 503 of the IPC, anybody who threatens another individual or someone they have feelings for An injury to the individual, a setback to their reputation, or damage to their assets. Criminal intimidation is the act of creating fear in that person and forcing them to do action against their will or refrain from taking any action that they are legally permitted to take in order to stop the threat from coming to pass.


In addition to robbing “X” and his wife of their belongings, the burglar threatened to murder them if they reported the theft to the authorities or set off an alarm. They phoned the police as soon as the thief departed, and they charged him with robbery and criminal intimidation as soon as they apprehended him. Despite being granted bail, the accused was ultimately found guilty by the court of robbery and criminal intimidation.

It was said that while she was asleep, Mr. “A,” a blind girl’s relative, stroked her hand. He then allegedly took off her comforter and put his hand inside her clothes. In addition, he threatened to murder her if she told anybody who he was. The girl’s relatives reported Mr. “A” in court. In addition to other charges, the Court determined that Mr. “A” was guilty of criminal intimidation under this clause.

While he was on vacation, Z’s neighbour “Y” had erected a garage without telling him. As soon as “Z” came back, he objected to “Y’s” behaviour as it had harmed a portion of his property. Additionally, “Y” used derogatory language towards “Z” and threatened to have Y’s gunda pals and hooligans beat and kill “Z.” “Z’s” attorney suggested that he file a lawsuit. The Court determined that although there was apparent criminal intimidation in the threat to kill and beat up “Z,” the abuses would not be considered crimes under this clause.

Mrs. “A” and her spouse wed outside of their caste after escaping their homes since their family did not want them to wed. A year later, Mrs. “A” received letters from her brother and father announcing their intention to take Mrs. “A” and her husband apart. They were still upset with Mrs. “A” for eloping with her husband, and they threatened to burn down her house and murder her. Because they were afraid, Mrs. “A” and her husband went to a lawyer, who assisted them in filing a criminal intimidation case against the family members who were threatening to hurt them and their belongings.

The decision was made by D and his friends to sue a clothing business whose employee had snapped images of D’s friend F as she was getting dressed. When “D” and his friends were discovered, the shopkeeper threatened to show out “F’s” pictures and hurt “D” and his friends’ families if they went to the police. ‘D’ and his friends reported the first incident to the police in spite of the threat. They brought a criminal procedural lawsuit in court against the retailer. The proprietor of the business was charged with voyeurism as well as criminal intimidation.

The fundamentals of IPC, 1860 Section 503

Under the IPC, a threat need not be overt. Criminal intimidation may apply even if a threat is made to a third party or in public. It’s also critical to remember that this kind of threat needs to be genuine. Under Section 503 of the IPC, the person threatening the other cannot be found guilty of a crime involving criminal intimidation if they are incapable of carrying out their threat.

The following conditions must be met for an offence to be covered under Section 503 of the IPC:

A person should be in danger of suffering physical harm, and their possessions or reputation should also be in danger. The threat needs to be made with the goal of doing harm. The intimidation needs to be intended to make that person feel uneasy.

Criminal intimidation is any act that leads a person to do something they are not legally required to do in order to prevent harm from occurring if they do not, or that leads a person to omit something they are legally required to do out of fear that the person intimidating them will harm them. For the crime to be considered complete, both components must basically exist together.

The accusation against the accused may be contested if any one of them is shown to be false. Potential threats might be conveyed verbally, in writing, or even via body language. Therefore, it might be frightening even to make provocative movements. Section 503 even covers threats to harm the reputation of a deceased person in whom the threatened person has an interest. Let’s define several terminology that are utilised in Section 503 of the IPC, 1860.

In the Amulya Kumar Behara v. Nabaghana Behara Alias Nabina (1995) case, the Orissa High Court previously said that threats can cause a person to experience extreme mental stress and worry, which might be concerning, albeit the level of alarm varies depending on the individual. The intimidator should create a level of worry that causes the threatened individual to become so uneasy that they are unable to manage their own free will. In this instance, a threat is evaluated in light of a common sense of firmness, reason, and caution.

Injury is defined under Section 44 of the IPC. It refers to any injury done to a person’s body, psyche, or reputation that is done so unlawfully.

Fear and intimidation

Intimidation, as defined by Webster’s dictionary, is the act of making someone else fearful or coercing them into acting in a violent way.


It’s a psychological disorder. Determining the accused’s intention is crucial in determining their guilt or innocence, and it may be elucidated by analysing the case’s particular facts and circumstances.


Its root term is “threoton to lire,” which is Anglo-Saxon for “harass.” It is the intention of causing another person harm, suffering, or punishment.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vikram Johar (2019)

the Supreme Court noted that the act of just using derogatory words falls short of fulfilling the essential requirements for criminal intimidation. The defendant was accused of going to the plaintiff’s house and using a pistol to verbally abuse him while using foul language. Even though the defendant had threatened to harm the plaintiff, when the neighbours showed up, the defendant had left the area. The bench determined that the aforementioned assertions do not, on their face, appear to be criminal offences.

State of Karnataka v. Manik Taneja (2015)

In this instance, the Supreme Court ruled that written comments made on a person’s Facebook page about unjust police treatment would not qualify as criminal intimidation. The appellant was involved in an auto-rickshaw-related traffic collision. After finding out that the autorickshaw passenger was hurt, the appellant covered the cost of the victim’s medical care. The passenger was then taken to the hospital, and no formal complaint was made. She was, however, summoned to the police station and purportedly intimidated by the officers. She complained about the terrible treatment and harassment she had received from the Bangalore traffic police on their Facebook page, feeling betrayed and without else to go. In accordance with Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC, the police registered a case and filed a formal complaint against the appellant. The bench concluded, therefore, that there was no evidence of illegal intimidation in this particular case.

State v. Romesh Chandra Arora (1960)

The accused threatened to harm ‘X’ and his daughter’s reputation by spreading a picture of the girl with a male in her undies if the money was not provided to him. The Supreme Court expounded on the application of Section 503 of the IPC in this instance. The kid and girl were coerced into taking off their clothing by “X,” who threatened to disseminate and make public the photos if they did not give him money. Criminal intimidation with the purpose of causing alarm was the accusation brought against the accused-appellant.
The accused’s goal, according to the court, was to incite fear in order to obtain money by threatening to publish the offensive images on a public forum. As a result, the defendants were found guilty and sentenced by the Supreme Court for extortion under Section 384 of the IPC and criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 506, describes the penalties for criminal intimidation and threats of harm to oneself or others, including property destruction. The first section of the code prescribes a fine, a maximum two-year sentence in jail, or both. Threats against a woman’s unchastity are included under the second section, which carries a maximum seven-year jail sentence or a fine. The first part of the code becomes compoundable if the accused consents to the dismissal of charges. For the intimidated individual, the second half of the code is non-compoundable, while it is bailable and compoundable for the other part. Penalties differ based on the particular offence.

Criminal case: Shrikrushna S/o Babulaji Tawari v. State of Maharashtra (2020)

The petitioner in this case was found guilty of charges covered under IPC, 1860 Sections 354, 509, and 506. Mr. “R,” Mrs. “S’s husband and she are 45 years old and quite happy together. The applicant allegedly tried to offer Mrs. S a chit while she was cleaning utensils, according to the complaint. The applicant then flung the chit on Mrs. “S” and fled, whispering to himself that he loved her after she refused to receive the same. When the applicant came back the next morning, she was warned not to tell anybody about what was written on the chit by means of vulgar gestures.

Mrs S said that the applicant had flirted with her in the past and thrown little rocks at her before this event. Following the inquiry, the applicant denied any culpability when the final report was presented. He claimed that he was the nearby grocery shop owner and that Mrs. “S” had been buying goods from him on credit. Because she didn’t want to pay the applicant back, she filed a fake complaint against him.

Based on the available chits and further evidence, the Magistrate and the Appellate Court found the petitioner guilty of acts that were covered by Sections 354, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench, however, determined that the conviction obtained under Section 506 of the IPC could not stand on the evidence presented, which showed that the petitioner had warned Mrs. “S” to keep the contents of the chit a secret. The bench stated that there was room for conjecture regarding the substance of the threat, whether the language employed was alarming, and if Mrs. “S” was indeed scared.

An exception

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that it is unlawful to compound an offence under Section 506 (part 2). However, in a proper case, a dismissal from prosecution could be allowed. The Sessions Court application procedure may be started if a First Class Magistrate denies the bail. Should things not improve, the matter might be brought to the High Court.

The type and magnitude of the danger

Since the terms “distress” and “terror” have been replaced with the word “alarm,” which is limited to the crime when the result is to inflict additional suffering, the description of the present section 506 is essentially new. The prior language was less concerning and did not fully convey the gravity of the peril that an individual faced. This was done because, in many cases, the psychological suffering and anxiety brought on by an injury covered by this section because it was menacing or intimidating might be just as substantial as the physical hurt. In the 1989 case Ghanshyam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the defendant invaded a home in the middle of the night, threatening to kill the occupants with a knife. According to part two Section 506 of the IPC, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that this constituted criminal intimidation.

The character of the menacing remarks

According to Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC, a threat must be made with the aim of scaring the complainant about the possibility of prosecution and must be such that the person making it is capable of carrying it out. It is not possible to classify a vague threat made by the accused that he or she would seek revenge by bringing false charges as criminal intimidation because the threat itself does not have any physical consequences.  It is evident from a cursory reading of Section 503 that the threat must be made with the intent to do harm to someone’s person, reputation, or property.
In addition, the goal must be to force the target to do something against the law, something they wouldn’t have done otherwise, or to omit something they are required by law to perform. It is guesswork to determine the nature of the threat, the language used to threaten, and if the expressions employed were sufficient to induce fear or panic.

An explanation of IPC, 1860 Section 507

The criminal intimidation crime, as specified in Section 503 of the IPC, is punishable under both Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC. Actually, as a consequence of Section 506, Section 507 provides provisions for criminal incitement and intimidation through anonymous communication. Many people use illegal intimidation, such as sending an anonymous letter written with a false name, or hiding their identity and place of residence, since they lack the guts to threaten someone directly. In certain cases, the crime carries a two-year jail sentence in addition to the penalties stipulated in Section 506. A Section 507 crime is non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, and subject to a trial.

The primary components of this section are the same as those of section 503, with the exception that the threat is made either anonymously or after great care to hide the identity and address of the giver. For an infraction to be punished under this clause, it is not essential for the residence and name to be hidden. Because Section 507 punishment is combined with Section 506 punishment, an offence under Section 507 carries a higher penalty than an infraction under Section 506.

Actions to take in the event of criminal intimidation

it becomes a severe issue to handle when an IPC-governed problem involves both the accused and the victim. If found guilty of the crime of criminal intimidation, a defendant may be subject to harsh punishment. In a criminal intimidation case, the victim should speak with a lawyer right away and approach the police or magistrate promptly because the offence would be difficult to identify. Before and after the arrest, the person involved in such a situation has to be aware of all of his or her legal rights. The victim or person who is intimidated should compile a timeline of the incidents and write it down on paper to make it easier to understand.

Section 506 IPC’s jurisdiction under various State Governments

Certain state governments have declared that any offence punishable under Sections 186, 189, 188, 190, 295A, 298, 505, 506, or 507 of the IPC, 1860 when committed in an area specified in the notification shall be cognizable while such notification remains in force and be deemed to be amended accordingly. These declarations have been made through the official gazette and through the exercise of powers granted by Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. Thus, a crime punished under Section 188 or Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code may be declared non-bailable by the State Government.

The rationale behind this action stems from the fact that India is a highly heterogeneous nation, with minor offences in one region being viewed as highly offensive by society in another. Thus, Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, of 1932, gave the State Governments the authority to reclassify certain offences. Section 506 of the IPC is cognizable and non-bailable in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Maharashtra. But in Meghalaya, the penalty consists of a three-year jail sentence, a fine, or both.

Smt. Jharna Das Baidya v. Shri Padma Mohan Jamatia (2019)

In this instance, Smt. Baidya, a member of parliament and the head of the CPI (M) party was the accused-respondent in a complaint petition that Sri Jamatia had filed under Section 190 of the CrPC, 1973. She gave a speech at one of the rallies in which it was claimed that the accused-respondent had received threats and that the chief campaigner and president of the State BJP party would leave the State after the 2018 assembly elections, leaving the local BJP party workers in the State with terrible consequences.
In this instance, a provocation of such a serious kind that it would induce someone to commit bodily injury or grievous pain on a person is required to draw the components of Section 503, Section 504, or Section 506. In its ruling, the Tripura High Court ruled that the simple act of using derogatory language, foul body language, or inappropriate body language during a political leader’s speech would not fall under the purview of Sections 503, 504, or 506 of the IPC. In this instance, the respondent’s speech was not witnessed by the complaint directly. He learned about the speech’s contents via the press as well as by watching it on television. Furthermore, the complaint was unable to provide any evidence to support the provocation made by the CPI(M) or the BJP with the intention of seriously impairing public order. Furthermore, the complainant did not request police protection or convey any concern for his life in the report.

C. Pushparaj v. Subramanian Swamy (Dr.) (1998)

The Madras High Court ruled in this case that, when the complaint and respondent’s statements are considered jointly, there are no claims in the entire complaint that the petitioner ever attempted to take action in response to his purported expression, which the respondent interpreted as intimidation. Neither in the lawsuit nor in the depositions were the petitioner’s exact remarks mentioned. Without these components, merely bringing up Sections and subjecting someone to a trial amounted to nothing more than a misuse of the legal system. As a result, the Madras High Court decided that Section 506 IPC, Part II, only applied in this case if the criminal intimidation contained a threat of death or serious injury. A simple outburst would not be considered a violation of Section 506 of the IPC.

State v. Kanshi Ram (2000)

According to Isran Ahmed, the complainant in this case, the petitioner had asked his security staff to beat the journalists at the pertinent time, according to his case diary testimony. The lawsuit claims that the petitioner used the precise phrase “Maro Salon Ko.” However, the complainant did not mention in his statement that he was alarmed by the purported threat. Conversely, the evidence made it very evident that neither the complainant nor any other media personnel turned around following the purported threat. The Delhi High Court ruled that a threat alone does not constitute an offence. Consequently, the petitioner’s purported threat was outside the purview of Section 506 IPC’s mischief. Consequently, the petitioner’s purported threat was outside the purview of Section 506 IPC’s mischief. Consequently, the petitioner could not be charged under Section 506 IPC based on the aforementioned facts.

NCT of Delhi v. Amitabh Adhar (2000)

the accused Sudhanshu Saran’s wife, Ms. Bharti Saran, was the complainant. The prosecution claimed that Sudhanshu Saran and Ms Bharti Saran’s married relationship was characterised by continual fighting and squabbling and lacked marital satisfaction. The demand for dowry and the accused Sudhanshu Saran’s perverse sexual conduct were the root causes of this disagreement. The petitioners were the accused Sudhanshu Saran’s stepsister and stepsister. The complainant filed a formal complaint against her spouse and the petitioners with the police. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 509, and 34 of the IPC. The petitioners’ accusations in the FIR and the complainant’s case diary statement did not meet the requirements necessary for the offences specified in Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the petitioners’ purported threats against the complainant did not meet the criteria for criminal intimidation since the complainant made no mention of the petitioners’ threats alarming her in any way. Consequently, it was decided that a threat alone does not qualify as criminal intimidation; rather, it must be intended to terrify the target of the threat.

The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tilak Raj (2016)

In this instance, the prosecutrix and the appellant became close around two years before the occurrence. Under the guise of marriage, he wooed her. The prosecutrix claimed that at her residence, the appellant had physically and sexually assaulted her. The prosecutrix made the decision to go to the police station the next day to file a rape FIR. She did not file a complaint, nevertheless, as it appears that the appellant threatened to kill her if she did. However, the appellant who had pledged the prosecutrix’s marriage did not show up. The prosecutrix reported to the police on January 6, 2010, that the appellant had sexually assaulted her. She further claimed that the appellant had exploited her sexually in exchange for a marriage vow. After taking into account the evidence, the Sessions Court in Chamba, which served as the Trial Court, granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt and cleared him of all accusations. Nonetheless, the Himachal Pradesh High Court partially granted the prosecution’s appeal. Although the Trial Court’s acquittal for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was affirmed, the HC found him guilty under Sections 417 and 506 IPC.

In summary

The penal code, Section 506 IPC, categorises criminal intimidation into two parts: part 1 pertains to less serious forms of the offence, while Part 2 deals with more serious forms. The IPC specifically defines the crime of criminal intimidation and attempts to include all forms of intimidation. It is a severe thing to be charged with any kind of crime, no matter how small. When someone is charged under section 506, they run the possibility of incurring harsh fines and repercussions, including jail time, maybe even a criminal record if found guilty, loss of relationships, and diminished opportunities for employment in the future. In actuality, many people exploit filing complaints under the guise of criminal intimidation in order to get revenge. It is intended that when adjustments are made, Section 506 will become more modern and inclusive in light of social media offences, technology advancements, and societal shifts in general.

If still have any doubts then feel free consult top criminal lawyers in bangalore

Leave a Comment