Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Chapter XIX > Criminal Intimidation (S. 351 BNS)
Criminal intimidation is a serious offence that threatens an individual’s personal liberty, safety, and peace of mind. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the law codifies and modernizes the provisions relating to intimidation, emphasizing both traditional forms of threat and contemporary modes, including electronic and digital communications. The BNS recognizes that intimidation is not limited to physical proximity or immediate danger but also encompasses any threat that induces fear of injury, death, or harm to a person, their family, or property.
By explicitly criminalizing such acts, the BNS seeks to protect citizens from psychological harm, coercion, and undue influence, ensuring that threats—whether verbal, written, or digital—are met with strict legal consequences. The provision underscores the principle that law must safeguard not only the body and property but also the mental security and dignity of individuals in a rapidly evolving society.
Comparative Study BNS and IPC
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Change |
| S. 351(1) | S. 503 | IPC section is included as a sub-section in BNS. “by any means” is added. |
| S. 351 (2)/(3) | S. 506 | IPC Section is included as a sub-section in BNS sans heading. |
| S. 351(4) | S. 507 | IPC Section is included as a sub-section in BNS sans heading. |
Criminal Intimidation (S. 351 BNS):
Criminal Intimidation:
(1) Whoever threatens another by any means, 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:
A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
Illustration:
A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.
(2) 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.
Ingredients of Criminal Intimidation S. 351(1) BNS:
To establish an offence under Section 351(1) BNS, prosecution must prove:
- There was a threat;
- The threat was of injury (physical, reputational, or property-related);
- There was intention to cause alarm; and
- The threat was meant to compel action or inaction
The communication of the threat may happen either with an oral utterance, in written form or even by gestures. Therefore, even showing provocative gestures can be intimidation. The threat doesn’t need to be direct. A threat of social boycott will not fall under this section because threat of injury in such cases is not of the nature defined in this section. A threat of vengeance has been held to be an offence within the meaning of this section.
Examples:
- A tells B, “If you report me to the police, I will kill you.” This is criminal intimidation because there is a threat of death intended to cause alarm.
- A says to B during a dispute, “If you enter this property again, I will break your legs.” Threat of hurt with intent to create fear amounts to criminal intimidation.
- A threatens B, “If you do not withdraw the complaint, I will post false allegations about you on social media.” Injury to reputation also falls within Section.
- A tells B, “If you don’t vacate the house, I will burn your shop.” Threat of damage to property constitutes criminal intimidation.
- A says to B, “If you testify in court, I will harm your brother.” Threat to a person in whom the victim is interested (family) is covered.
- A threatens B: “If you do not sign these papers, I will falsely implicate you in a criminal case.” Intimidation used to force someone to do something they are not legally bound to do.
- A sends a message via WhatsApp: “Pay me ₹50,000 or I will circulate your private photos.” Even electronic threats amount to criminal intimidation (and may also involve extortion).
Criminal intimidation is analogous to extortion. In extortion the immediate purpose is obtaining money or money’s worth; but in criminal intimidation the immediate purpose is to induce the person threatened to do, or abstain from doing, something which he was not legally bound to do or omit.
Punishment for Simple Criminal Intimidation S. 351(2) BNS:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this section is Non-Cognizable, Bailable, and triable by Any Magistrate.
Aggravated Form of Criminal Intimidation S. 351(3) BNS:
Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by threatening 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.
Ingredients of S. 351(3) BNS:
- The accused commits the offence of criminal intimidation; and
- He does it by threatening to cause death orto cause grievous hurt, orto 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,
Punishment under S. 351(3) BNS:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this section is Non-Cognizable, Bailable, and triable by Magistrate of First Class.
In Keshav Baliram Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 CriLJ 1111 case, where it was alleged that the accused touched the hand of the prosecutrix, a blind girl, when she was asleep and further proceeded to remove her quilt and insert his hand inside her dress. He threatened to kill her if she disclosed his identity. The Court held this to be a case of criminal intimidation under Part II of the Section, apart from other offences.
In Ghanshyam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 CriLJ 1017case, where the accused entered the house at night, armed with a knife. He threatened to kill the residents. This was held to be criminal intimidation under Part II of the provision.
Criminal Intimidation by an Anonymous Communication S. 351(4) BNS:
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, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence under sub-section (1).
Ingredients of S. 351(4)
- The accused commits criminal intimidation; and
- He commits it by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes
Punishment under S. 351(4) BNS:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence under sub-section 351(2).
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this section is Non-Cognizable, Bailable, and triable by Magistrate of First Class.
Case Laws:
In Amitabh Adhar v. NCT of Delhi, 2000 CriLJ 4772 case, the Delhi High Court held that a mere threat does not amount to criminal intimidation. There must be an intention to cause alarm to the person threatened.
In Amulya Kumar Behera vs Nabaghana Behera Alias Nabina, 1995 CRILJ 3559 case, the Orissa High Court said: “Intention must be to cause alarm to the victim and whether he is alarmed or not is really of no consequence. But material has to be brought on record to show that intention was to cause alarm to that person. Here expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in application of Section 506, IPC (S. 351 BNS). The gist of the offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon mind of person threatened. It is clear that before it can have effect upon his mind it must be either made to him by the person threatening or communicated to him in some way. …. Intention is a mental condition which has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. The threat must be intended to cause alarm from which it follows that, ordinarily, it would be sufficient for that purpose. The degree of such alarm may vary in different cases, but the essential matter is that it is of a nature and extent to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and take away from his acts that element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent. The case where the threat produces an alarm is comparatively a simple one, for all that has then to be proved is that threat was given and that the alarm was due to the threat; but where the threat has not that effect, it involves a question whether it was sufficient to overcome a man of ordinary nerves.”
In Shri Vasant Waman Pradhan v. Shri Dattatraya Vithal Salvi, 2004 (1) MHLJ 487 case, The Bombay High Court clarified that the core of criminal intimidation lies in the accused’s malicious intentions or malafide motives. The court highlighted that determining the intention behind the act should consider the surrounding facts and circumstances associated with the incident.
In Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 2109 case, where the respondent and some others went to the plaintiff’s residence, and one person in the group was carrying a pistol. They verbally abused the plaintiff and attempted to attack him, but when neighbours arrived, they ran away. The Supreme Court concluded that the mere act of abusing someone in filthy language does not meet the requirements for the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the IPC (S. 351(1) BNS). The court found that the accusation, if taken at face value, did not fulfil the elements of criminal intimidation under Sections 504 IPC (S. 351(3) BNS) and 506 of the IPC (S. 352 BNS), as the insult was not severe enough to cause a person to break public peace or commit another crime.
In Manik Taneja vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423 case, where, the appellant was involved in a road accident, wherein she clashed with an auto-rickshaw. The passenger of the auto sustained injuries and was subsequently admitted in a hospital. The appellant duly paid all the expenses of the injured and no FIR was lodged. However, she was called to the police station and was allegedly threatened by the police officers. Aggrieved with the way that she was treated, she posted comments on the Facebook page of Bangalore Traffic Police, accusing the police officer of harsh behaviour and the harassment meted out to her. The Police Inspector filed a case against the appellants for this act and an FIR was registered under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC. The Supreme Court ruled that it could not be criminal intimidation to write statements regarding unfair treatment by the police on the Facebook website.
In Re A.K. Gopalan vs. The State of Madras, Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 27 case, where the speaker at a Public Meeting threatened the police officers posted at Malabar with harm to their individual, belongings, or reputations. The Court held that the speaker, was responsible for the crime of criminal intimidation.
In Anuradha Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra, 1991 CriLJ 410 case, where the defendants reportedly threatened the female teachers by screaming that teachers should be captured, kicked and removed from the hall. The High Court of Bombay considered these findings to be an act of criminal intimidation.
Distinguishing between Criminal intimidation and Extortion
Distinguishing between Criminal intimidation vs. Assault
Conclusion:
Criminal intimidation, as defined under the Sanhita, serves as a critical legal safeguard against threats that aim to instill fear, manipulate behaviour, or coerce individuals into unlawful compliance. By criminalizing such acts, the law ensures personal safety, protects reputations, and upholds individual freedom and dignity. However, the enforcement of this provision requires careful consideration of intent, context, and evidence, especially in an era where digital threats are becoming increasingly common. While it acts as a deterrent against misuse of power and influence, there is also a need to prevent its misuse through false or exaggerated complaints.
The provisions appear to be inadequate to address the needs of the evolving society. With societal changes and technological advancements, the law must adapt accordingly. The concept of criminal intimidation is quite extensive, but it lacks explicit provisions for situations where individuals are coerced into committing suicide due to threats or for cases involving intimidation through online platforms. Therefore, there is a pressing need to introduce more inclusive provisions and appropriate punishments that hold societal significance for instances of criminal intimidation.
Ultimately, the law on criminal intimidation strikes a balance between freedom of speech and protection from fear-based coercion. Continuous judicial interpretation and evolving legal awareness are essential to ensure that this provision remains effective, fair, and relevant in both traditional and modern contexts.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here