What is Criminal Intimidation ? What is the punishment for the Criminal Intimidation? Section 503 and 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860
503. 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.
Read Also : || Section 510 in The Indian Penal Code ||
COMMENT :
The provision states that anyone who threatens any other person on the following grounds is liable for criminal intimidation.
- Threatens injury to his person ;
- Threatens injury to his reputation ;
- Threatens injury to his property ;
- Threatens injury to the person or reputation of anyone in whom the person is interested.
Further, the intention should be to cause alarm to that person ; or to make them perform any act which they are not legally bound to do ; or to omit any act which they are legally entitled to perform. If they are forced to do all of these acts as a means to avoid execution of such threat, this amounts to criminal intimidation.
Example: ‘A’ for the purpose of inducing 'B' to refrain from filing a complaint against him, threatens to kill B’s wife. 'A' is liable to be punished for the offence of criminal intimidation.
Visit Also : A Health and fitness blog 👫💪
PUNISHMENT (Section 506) :
Punishment for Criminal Intimidation
The provision is divided into two parts:
In simple cases of criminal intimidation :
(1) 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.
Classification of the offence : This part is a non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable offence.
Triable by : Any Magistrate.
(2) 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.
Classification of the offence : This part is a non-cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable offence.
Triable by : Magistrate of the First Class.
State Amendment
State of Uttar Pradesh¹:
Imprisonment of 7 years, or fine or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
Read Also : || Which Came First : The Chicken🐔 Or the Egg 🥚 ? Here with proof ||
Important Judgments And Case Law Related to Section 503 of Indian Penal Code 1860 :
- Vikram Johar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 April, 2019
- Romesh Chandra Arora vs The State on 6 October, 1959
- Tilak Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 January, 2016
The Supreme Court has observed that if no deliberation about marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused took place before the alleged sexual contact which was consensual, it cannot be said that the consent has been given under misconception of marriage. Apex Court bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice V. Gopala Gowda made this observation in Tilak Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, while acquitting the accused from all the charges against him.
In this case, Trial Court had acquitted the accused from all the charges. On appeal, High Court though did not interfere with the findings of Trial court as regards the offence of rape, convicted the accused under Section 420 and 506 of IPC. The accused preferred appeal in Supreme Court.
The Apex Court also acquitted the accused of all the charges holding that the prosecution has failed to establish any of them.
- Manik Taneja & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 20 January, 2015
In the case the Apex Court held that posting comments about ill-treatment by the police personnel on Facebook Page may not amount to criminal intimidation. In this case, 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 Section 353 and 506 of the IPC. The Bench held that there was no intention on the appellant’s part to cause alarm under Section 503 of the IPC.
- Joseph Salvaraj A vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 4 July, 2011
- Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.& Ors vs State Of A.P. & Anr on 19 October, 2011
- Ram Swarup vs Mohd. Javed Razack & Anr on 23 February, 2005
- Srinivas Gundluri & Ors vs M/S. Sepco Electric Power Const. on 30 July, 2010
¹ Vide Notification No. 777/VIII 9-4(2)—87, dated 31st July, 1989, Published in U.P. Gazette, Extra, Pt. A, sec. (kha), dated 2nd August, 1989.
Data source :
wwww.indianconstitution.in
www.writinglaw.com
www.blog.ipleaders.in