Home / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita & Indian Penal Code
Criminal Law
Criminal Intimidation
« »30-Jan-2024
Introduction
Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) deals with Criminal intimidation which means to intimidate someone or threaten him so that he acts as the other person desires. The person who threatens the other is known as an intimidator.
Section 503 of IPC
- This section states that whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
- Explanation - Threat of injuring the reputation of a deceased person is also included.
- Illustration - A threatens to burn down B’s house in order to persuade him not to file a civil suit. A has committed the offence of criminal intimidation. In this situation, A has threatened B that he will cause damage to the property of B and subsequently asked him to omit to do the certain act (to file a civil suit) which he is legally bound to do therefore A will be guilty of the offence of criminal intimidation.
Essentials of Section 503 of IPC
- Threat
- Threat to cause injury to a person
- Threat to cause injury to the reputation
- Threat to cause injury to his property
- The threat is to cause injury to the person or reputation of anyone in whom the person is interested.
- Mens Rea
- The three elements of threat were aligned in the case of Romesh Chandra Arora v. State (1860). The three elements are mentioned below:
- To cause an alarm to someone. Alarm was declared to be synonymous with terror in the case of Amulya Kumar Behera v. Nabhagana Behera Alias Nabina (1995).
- To cause someone to perform an illegal act. The same was upheld in the case of Nand Kishor v. Emperor (1927).
- To omit someone to do an act he was supposed to do legally.
- The three elements of threat were aligned in the case of Romesh Chandra Arora v. State (1860). The three elements are mentioned below:
Section 504 of IPC
- This section deals with the intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.
- This section states that whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
- It is a non-cognizable, compoundable and bailable offence and is triable by any magistrate.
Section 506 of IPC
- This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.
- It states that whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
- If the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 507 of IPC
- This section deals with criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication.
- It states that whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years.
- The act is bailable, non-compoundable in nature, non-cognizable and triable by a magistrate of first class.
Landmark Cases
- In the case of Doraswamy Iyer v. King-Emperor (1924), the Madras High Court held that the nature of intimidation must be realistic and not fictional.
- In the case of Shri Vasant Waman Pradhan v. Dattatraya Vithal Salvi (2004), the Bombay High Court declared mens rea as the most essential ingredient of the offence of criminal intimidation.