file a civil suit) which he is legally bound to do therefore A

will be guilty of the offence of criminal intimidation.

Essentials of criminal intimidation
The landmark case of Narender Kumar & Ors vs.
Introduction
State established the following elements as necessary to
Many of you might have faced a situation where you
constitute an offence of criminal intimidation:
committed an act that you were not legally bound to do. You
The threat of injury to the victim
only did that act because someone threatened you to do
Section 44 of the IPC & 2(14) of BNS defines injury as any
otherwise he or she will cause harm to your reputation, body,
damage whatsoever unlawfully induced to any individual, in
or property. But how many of you know that this act of
body, mind, reputation, or property.
threatening is an offence under the Indian Penal Code,
Threatening can be done in the following ways:
1860 (IPC)? Yes! You have heard it right. This is an offence
• to cause injury to a person;
of criminal intimidation that is provided under section 503 of
• to cause injury to his reputation;
the IPC & section 351(1). According to this Section, criminal
• to cause injury to his property;
intimidation occurs when an accused threatens the victim with
• to cause injury to another person or the reputation of
damage to his reputation, body, or property, or another
anybody in whom the victim is interested.
individual in whom he has a vested interest. The punishment
Intimidation to cause bodily harm to another
for the offence is outlined in section 506 of the IPC & section
Criminal intimidation refers to any threat or danger that would
351(2) & (3).
cause bodily harm to an individual. Physical damage alone
must be taken into account for this Section, and mental or
The goal of the accused in committing this crime is to force
emotional trauma must be avoided. Moreover, the danger has
the victim to perform something illegal for the profit or
to be specific in nature and clearly communicated to the
advantage of the accused. We’ll learn more details about this
opposing party.
offence later in the article. We will be dealing with the
Intimidation to cause damage to his reputation
essential ingredients required for the commission of this
The term ‘reputation’ has been used in the context of goodwill
offence, various provisions of punishment for the commission
because it will diminish a person’s value in the eyes of the
of such an offence; different judgements, etc.
community. As a result, any effort or danger to cause harm to
What is criminal intimidation
goodwill falls under the purview of criminal intimidation.
According to the Oxford dictionary, the literal definition of
Threatens to cause harm to his property
intimidation is “to intimidate someone in order that the other
The property or wealth of an individual is the outcome of his
person acts as we desire.”
tireless hard work and is extremely valuable to him.
Criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 of the IPC &
Therefore, any danger or warning that could cause significant
section 351(1) of BNS as an offence committed in which an
damage to his property is also regarded as an offence under
individual endangers or threatens another with harm to his
Section 503 (351(1) of BNS) of the IPC. The word ‘property’
person, reputation, or property in order to compel the other
encompasses both physical and intangible property. Joint-
individual to do an act that he is not bound by law to perform.
holding properties can also come under the ambit of this
The intimidator is the person who endangers the other.
Section.
The accused may use words or gestures to intimidate and
Threatening to inflict harm to any other individual or his
harm the victim’s body, property, reputation, or other
reputation in which the original person’s interest is involved
members of the family.
The definition of criminal intimidation is broadened by this
Illustration: A threatens to burn down B’s house in order to
provision. This provision broadened the definition of criminal
persuade him not to file a civil suit. A has committed the
intimidation. This provision makes threats or warnings of
offence of criminal intimidation. In this situation, A has
threats an offence if they are intended to harm someone in
threatened B that he will cause damage to the property of B
whom they have a personal interest. In layman’s terms, it
and subsequently asked him to omit to do the certain act (to
refers to any warning or threat given to his son, daughter,
wife, or any other close family member. Moreover, the result, a threat to induce actual physical real physical harm is
explanation mentioned in Section 503 (3519(1) of BNS) unnecessary.
asserts that a threat to harm a dead person’s reputation is also An intentional insult intended to cause a breach of peace
protected by this Section. Section 504 of the IPC & section 352 of BNS allows for
Intention at the time of the threat another type of intimidation. Unlike Section 503 (351(1)), in
The threat should be made with the intention of: this provision, no purpose of causing damage is required, and
• causing alerts to an individual; or no threat is required.
• causing an individual to perform an act that he is not Section 504 (352) applies when someone intentionally insults
legally required to perform in order to prevent the and instigates him (for example, by using offensive language).
implementation of such a threat; or The offender must be aware that his instigation may induce
• causing an individual to omit to perform any act which the victim to disrupt public order or commit an offence.
that individual is legally assigned to do in order to For example, if the accused abused the victim in a way that
prevent the implementation of such a threat. seriously impacted the modesty of his mother or sister, such
Threatening to cause alarm to an individual conduct is punishable under IPC Section 504.
This provision requires that there be an intent to cause alarm This is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years, with
to an individual who is threatened. The word ‘alarm’ was or without a fine.
established in the case of Amulya Kumar Behera v. Punishment for criminal intimidation
Nabaghana Behera Alias Nabina (1995), in which the Orissa Under Section 506 (351 (2) & (3)) of the IPC, the
High Court determined that it is similar to words such as punishments for the offence of criminal intimidation are as
‘fear’ or ‘distress’. follows:
Threatening someone to do something he is not legally Simple criminal intimidation
obligated to do The first part of this Section provides that if a person is
According to this clause, if a person endangers someone with convicted of the offence of criminal intimidation, then their
force to do something that he does not want to do lawfully, he penalty would be up to two years of imprisonment, a fine, or
will be charged with criminal intimidation. both. The offence that falls under this part is non-cognizable,
In the case of Nand Kishore v. Emperor (1927), a butcher was bailable, compoundable, and triable by any magistrate.
threatened by some people that if he engaged in the trading of Hurt, grievous hurt or death of the person
beef, he would be sent to prison, and it would be difficult for The second part of this Section provides that if the threat of
him to live in society. During that time, the trading of beef the intimidator causes hurt, grievous hurt, or death to the
was legal. Therefore, the Allahabad High Court ruled that this person who is threatened, or damage to any property by fire,
threat would be construed as criminal intimidation. he or she will have to face a maximum of seven years
Threatening an individual to omit to perform any act that he is imprisonment, a fine, or both. The offences under this part are
lawfully required to do non-compoundable and can be tried by a magistrate of the
If anyone knowingly and willingly threatens or attempts to first class.
threaten anyone to refrain from performing any act that he is The threat is to impute chastity to women
legally permitted to perform, he will be charged with criminal When a person threatens a woman with unchastity, the
intimidation. punishment has to be either imprisonment of any kind for a
An analysis of criminal intimidation term that can last up to seven years, or a fine, or both.
As we have seen, the main components of Section 503 are Is probation available for those charged under Section 506
threats and the intent to cause harm. The threat must be IPC
communicated to the victim. The threat can be communicated The Supreme Court has given two different responses to the
verbally, in writing, or even through expressions. Besides that, question of whether an individual charged with criminal
if there isn’t any intent to cause harm, the threat is intimidation and punished under Section 506 of the IPC, is
insufficient. This requirement of criminal intimidation might entitled to probation.
even be met if the threat frightens the complainant. As a In Ramnaresh Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1973), the
accused was charged with intimidating a female doctor, for abducted by certain goons. The goons called Mr. Ram and
which he was punished by the trial court under Section 506 of demanded a ransom of Rs 25 lakh without revealing their
Part II of the IPC and sentenced to one year on probation identities. They also threatened Mr. Ram that they would kill
(under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958). The his daughter if he did not make a payment on time. This is an
learned Additional Session Judge reversed the trial judge’s offence covered by this Section.
judgement. This sentence was upheld by the High Court. The Act caused by inducing a person to believe that he will be
Supreme Court, on the other hand, asserted that the appellate rendered an object of divine displeasure
court shouldn’t have reversed the trial court’s order of According to Section 508 of the IPC, when an accused person
probation. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person to do
court’s order because neither the appellate court nor the High something that he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do
Court provided any justification for overturning the trial something that he is legally entitled to do, and the accused
court’s order of probation based on good behaviour. person induces such a person to believe that he or any person
In complete contradiction, in Siyasaran v. State of Madhya in whom he is interested will become an object of divine
Pradesh (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that the accused, displeasure if he does not do a particular thing, the accused
who had previously been found guilty of attacking a doctor by person is guilty.
punching him in the face, causing a misplaced tooth, If a person violates the law in a specific way, he or she faces a
shouldn’t have had his act tolerated. The trial court convicted maximum of one year in prison, a fine, or both.
him under Sections 333 and 506 (Part II) of the IPC and Furthermore, the offence under this Section can be categorised
sentenced him to three and two years in prison, respectively, as non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable by the
which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court denied the individual against whom the offence was committed, and
accused’s request for probation on the basis of good triable by any magistrate.
behaviour. However, the court ruled that crimes against Difference between extortion and criminal intimidation
doctors and staff in healthcare facilities are not allowed Some basic differences between extortion and criminal
because it would harm the self-esteem of all doctors. As a intimidation are as follows:
result, the conviction was upheld by the court. Points of
Extortion Criminal intimidation
differences
Sections of It is defined in Section 383 of the It is defined in Section 503 of the
This is just for your knowledge not included in your exam IPC IPC. IPC.
Extortion means that an individual This offence is committed when
syllabus places another individual in a state someone poses a threat to another
Commission of criminal intimidation by an anonymous of apprehension or threat to injure with harm to his person, property,
Definition him or dishonestly persuade him so or reputation, and the other person
communication that he can deliver the property or is forced to perform or omit
This is a more serious or agitated type of criminal any other valuable security to something he is not legally required
another person. to do or omit.
intimidation, punishable under Section 507 of the IPC. Except
The main purpose of criminal
for one element, the rest of the elements of criminal intimidation is to threaten someone
The main purpose of extortion is to
intimidation are exactly the same under this offence. The Purpose obtain money or any other valuable
to do any act that he is not bound to
do or to induce someone not to do
distinguishing feature of this offence is that the criminal security.
anything that he is legally bound to
intimidator commits the offence anonymously without do.
In extortion, both actual and In criminal intimidation, only
revealing his identity. This offence is punishable by Force used
constructive force are used. constructive force is used.
imprisonment for a term of up to two years, a fine, or both. It Delivery of There is no delivery of property,
Delivery of the property is essential
should be noted that this imprisonment is in addition to the the
under this offence.
money, or valuable security in
property criminal intimidation.
usual punishment for criminal intimidation, which is provided Punishment
The maximum punishment for The maximum punishment for
under Section 506 of the IPC. for the
extortion is 3 years. criminal intimidation is 2 years.
offence
The nature of the offence under Section 507 of the IPC is
bailable, non-cognizable, and non-compoundable, triable by a Social media : a new platform for criminal intimidation
first-class magistrate. Social media has created a new world order. When an
For example, suppose the daughter of a person named Ram is individual might not say anything in person, he may say
something through the veils of online platforms. With the Even after that, the woman was summoned to the police
emergence of social media sites, offenders now have a new station and allegedly threatened by officers. Feeling incensed,
system to intimidate and threaten someone. They no longer she complained on the Bangalore traffic police’s Facebook
have to intimidate their victims physically; they can page regarding the cruel treatment and abusive behaviour of
accomplish this with a single click. Furthermore, such threats the police. The police lodged an FIR and registered a lawsuit
can be forwarded anonymously, providing the perpetrators against the appellant under Section 506 of the IPC. The Bench
with an advantage. determined that there had been no evidence of criminal
Section 503 of the IPC also addresses criminal intimidation in intimidation in this case. The Supreme Court ruled that
instances in which the offender conveys his threat via an posting written statements about unfair police treatment of an
online platform. And thus, Section 503 of the IPC requires individual on their Facebook page did not constitute criminal
that the danger should be conveyed to the individual intimidation.
intimidated, irrespective of the medium, and thus, even if a Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)
threat is produced through social sites, it should also be In the case of Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019),
considered criminal intimidation within the scope of Section the respondent reached the plaintiff’s residence with 2-3 other
503, and when the offender transmits the threat anonymously random people, among whom one was carrying a pistol, and
or attempts to conceal his identity while transmitting the abused the plaintiff in filthy language and tried to attack him;
threat, he will also be liable under Section 507 of the IPC. when some neighbours reached, the respondent and the other
However, there is a potential problem in applying Section 503 people surrounding him ran away.
in instances in which the threat was made online. Section 503 The Supreme Court determined that the aforementioned
requires that the threat be formed with the aim of accusation, if taken at face value, does not meet the
communicating it to the individual intimidated. However, on requirements of Section 504 and Section 506 of the IPC. The
social media platforms, communication meant for a small deliberate insult should be severe enough to cause an
group of people can reach a large number. So, whenever the individual to break the public peace or commit another crime.
threat reaches the person threatened but the accused has no The mere act of abusing someone in filthy or dirty language
intention of communicating the threat to the threatened does not meet the requirements for the offence of criminal
person, the statute no longer perceives it as criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the IPC.
intimidation. Limitation of the provision of criminal intimidation
Threats and intimidation are all too frequent on social media. Chapter XXII of the IPC, which contains the provision of
It is shocking to note that such threats have even prompted criminal intimidation, lags far behind societal needs. With a
people to attempt or commit suicide. There have been changing and developing society, the law must also evolve.
instances where the accused in criminal proceedings have The notion of criminal intimidation is extremely broad. There
threatened victims into withdrawing their complaints using is no explicit provision for being intimidated to commit
online mediums. These incidents endanger not only the suicide as a result of a threat, and there is no specific
victims of the crime but also the very objectives of the provision for intimidation through online platforms. As a
criminal justice system. Given the gravity of the circumstance, result, it must be acknowledged that there is an immediate
it is critical that the law prevent this from becoming the new requirement for more inclusive provisions, as well as
normal. punishments that have societal value for criminal intimidation.
Judicial pronouncements on criminal intimidation
Manik Taneja & Anr v. State of Karnataka (2015) Cases for Criminal Intimidation
In the case of Manik Taneja & Anr v. State of Karnataka 1. Manik Taneja & Another vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 7 SCC 423
(2015), the appellant was involved in a car accident with an Key Takeaways:
Freedom of Speech vs. Intimidation: Mere criticism of public authorities
auto-rickshaw. The appellant paid the compensation for the (like the police) does not amount to criminal intimidation.
treatment of the passenger of the auto-rickshaw after learning Quashing of FIR: The Court ruled that social media criticism does not
that he had been wounded; the passenger was later taken to a satisfy the ingredients of Sections 503-506 IPC unless there is a real
threat.
hospital, and no complaint was filed.
 civil/commercial, criminal intimidation cannot be invoked as a pressure
tactic.
2. Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 14 SCC 230 Real Intent & Fear are Necessary – A threat must be genuine, specific,
Facts of the Case
and cause actual alarm to attract Section 506 IPC.
The appellant, Vikram Johar, was accused of criminal intimidation under Quashing of FIRs in Abuse of Process – The Supreme Court discourages
Sections 504 and 506 IPC.
frivolous criminal complaints used to harass or pressurize opponents in
The allegations stemmed from a property dispute between the
disputes.
complainant and the accused. Conclusion
The complainant claimed that the accused threatened him with dire This case set an important precedent that criminal intimidation under
consequences, which led to the registration of an FIR.
Section 506 IPC cannot be misused in business or civil disputes. FIRs
The appellant challenged the FIR, arguing that mere verbal threats
filed as a means of coercion rather than for genuine legal grievances will
without real intent or resulting fear do not constitute criminal be quashed by the courts.
intimidation.
Key Legal Issue
Whether mere verbal threats without a real intent to cause alarm can 4. Madan Mohan vs. State of Gujarat (2018) 15 SCC 561
amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. Facts of the Case
Supreme Court Judgment • The accused, Madan Mohan, was charged under Section 506 IPC (criminal
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, ruling that: intimidation) for allegedly threatening the complainant in a dispute.
Mere verbal threats in the absence of actual intent or ability to carry them • The complainant claimed that the accused used threatening language and
out do not amount to criminal intimidation. tried to instill fear in him.
A threat must be real and cause genuine fear in the mind of the victim. • The accused contended that his statements were casual, made in the heat of
The complaint was filed as a counterblast to a property dispute, showing the moment, and did not cause real fear.
an abuse of legal process. Key Legal Issue
Key Takeaways from the Judgment • Whether mere verbal threats, without a real intention to cause fear, amount
Threat Must Be Real & Credible – A vague or general threat is not to criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
enough; it must be specific and cause genuine fear. Supreme Court Judgment
No Criminal Intimidation in Routine Disputes – Using Section 506 IPC in • The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, ruling that:
civil or property disputes to pressurize the other party is not justified. 1. A mere threat does not constitute criminal intimidation unless it is
Abuse of Legal Process – FIRs based on exaggerated claims or retaliatory serious and creates actual fear.
complaints should be quashed.
Conclusion 2. Casual, vague, or exaggerated threats made in anger do not amount
This case reaffirmed that criminal intimidation cannot be invoked for to an offense under Section 506 IPC.
mere verbal altercations or threats without a real intent to cause fear. 3.The victim’s subjective feeling of fear is important, but the threat
Courts must scrutinize whether the threat was serious, specific, and must also be objectively capable of creating alarm.
alarming before allowing prosecution under Section 506 IPC. Key Takeaways from the Judgment
Mere Verbal Abuse ≠ Criminal Intimidation – A threat must be real
and serious, not just an emotional outburst.
3. G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP (2000) 2 SCC 636 Actual Fear is Required – The complainant must show that the threat
Facts of the Case genuinely alarmed him and influenced his actions.
The case arose from a business dispute between the complainant and the Legal Scrutiny of Section 506 IPC Cases – Courts should ensure
accused (G. Sagar Suri). criminal law is not misused to settle personal disputes.
The complainant alleged that the accused threatened him with dire General Principles from Case Laws
consequences and filed an FIR under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 Real Intent Required: A simple argument or abusive language does not
(criminal breach of trust), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. amount to criminal intimidation unless it instills genuine fear.
The accused argued that the criminal case was a pressure tactic to settle a Quashing of FIRs: If criminal intimidation is alleged in civil or property
civil dispute. disputes, courts often quash such cases as an abuse of process.
Key Legal Issue Threat Must be Specific & Credible: General threats without the capacity to
Whether allegations of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC can execute them are not sufficient.
be sustained when they arise in the context of a civil or commercial
dispute.
Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, ruling that:
Criminal law should not be used as a tool to pressurize parties in civil
disputes.
The mere allegation of a threat is insufficient unless there is real intent
and fear of harm.
Abuse of Process: The case was a misuse of criminal law to gain an
advantage in a civil dispute.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
Civil Disputes Should Not Be Criminalized – If the dispute is essentially