Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Criminal Intimidation (Ss. 503 and 506)
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) encompasses a wide range of offences to maintain law and order in society. Among these offenses are Sections 503, 504, 505, and 506 deal with criminal intimidation, intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace, and statements conducing to public mischief, respectively.
Criminal Intimidation:
Section 503 IPC:
Criminal Intimidation:
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:
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 desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.
Illustration:
A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.
Essential Ingredients of Intimidation:
In order to complete an offence under Section 503, the following ingredients must exist:
- Threatening a person with an injury
- to his person, reputation or property; or
- to that of any other person in whom that person is interested;
2. The threat must be with the intention to:
- cause alarm to that person; or
- cause that person to do something he is not legally bound to do for avoiding the harm that may arise if he does not do it; or
- cause that person to do omit something he is legally bound to do for avoiding the harm that may arise if he did it.
3. The accused should have the intention to cause alarm or apprehension in the person or someone in whom they have an interest.
4. The accused must have knowledge that their threat is likely to cause such alarm or apprehension.
These ingredients must necessarily exist together for the offence to be complete. The absence of any one of them may negate the charge against the accused.
If an offender just threatens any person but has no intention to harm him, it is not intimidation. Similarly, if he directly harms a person without threatening him, other offences may apply but Section 503 will not.
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 Shri Vasant Waman Pradhan v. Dattatraya Vithal Salvi, 2004 (1) MhLj 487 case, the Bombay High Court held that intention is the soul of criminal intimidation. It needs to be gathered by the surrounding circumstances.
Threatening, the Main Ingredient of S. 503:
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.
Threat of Social Boycott:
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.
Threat of Vengeance:
A threat of vengeance has been held to be an offence within the meaning of this section.
Person A owes a significant amount of money to Person B. Despite several reminders, Person A fails to repay the debt. Feeling frustrated, Person B confronts Person A and says, “If you don’t return the money by tomorrow, I will ensure that you lose your job and face legal consequences!”. By threatening to harm Person A’s employment and well-being, Person B aims to instil fear and coerce Person A into repaying the debt. Thus, Person B’s statement falls under criminal intimidation as per Section 503 of the IPC.
Criminal Intimidation and 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.
In Romesh Chandra Arora v. State, AIR 1960 SC 154 case, where the accused threatened a person X and his daughter, of injury to reputation by releasing a nude picture of the girl if the money was not paid. The accused-appellant was charged with criminal intimidation basically the intent was to cause alarm. The Court specified that the purpose of the accused was to cause alarm to get the money and to ensure that he did not go ahead with the threat of releasing the damaging photographs on a public platform.
Section 503 of the IPC defines the crime of criminal intimidation. This section states that anyone who threatens another person with the intention of causing alarm or apprehension of harm to that person or someone in whom they have an interest commits the offence of criminal intimidation.
It is important to note that the threat must be a credible one and must be sufficient to cause alarm to the person against whom the threat is made. Additionally, the threat must be made with the intention of causing alarm or to compel the person to do or omit to do something. Mere idle threats or empty bluster do not constitute the offense of criminal intimidation.
In Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2019 case, where, the allegation was that the defendant went to the home of the plaintiff and insulted him in a filthy language with a gun. They even threatened to attack him, but they escaped from the position when the neighbours arrived. The Apex Court has observed That the simple act of a usage of filthy language does not meet the fundamental requirements of the criminal intimidation. The Bench decided that the aforementioned claims were prima facie does not constitute the offence.
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.
Punishment for Criminal Intimidation:
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the punishment for the offense of criminal intimidation.
Section 506:
Punishment for Criminal Intimidation:
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 threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And 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.
Part 1:
- If any person is guilty of an offence under Section 503, the court can punish him with imprisonment up to 2 years. The court can even levy a fine for it. This part is a non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable offence. It can be tried by any Magistrate.
Part 2:
- The offender can receive greater punishment if he threatens the victim with severe consequences. For example, if he threatens to cause grievous harm, death or destruction of property, imprisonment extends to 7 years.
- If he threatens to impute the chastity of a woman, the imprisonment of up to 7 years can also include a fine.
The second part of the provision deals with punishing serious forms of criminal intimidation. It can be tried by the Magistrate of First Class. This part is bailable, non-cognizable and non-compoundable offence.
In Keshav Baliram Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 CriLJ 1111case, 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.
Conclusion:
Sections 503 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of criminal intimidation and Section 506 of the Code deals with the punishment for offences of criminal intimidation. These sections aim to safeguard individuals’ rights and protect them from threats, insults, and false allegations that may harm their reputation, safety, or well-being.