…Criminal Law Project Report…

CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION Section 503 – 510 Indian Penal Code, 1860

as it would have not been possible for me to do so without the indispensable guidance of my Professor. 1860) and its significant interpretation in modern day times. The genesis for certain important terms has also been traced to the Inception of the Indian Penal Code and duly highlighted in the following text… ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It is with profound gratitude and deep reverence that I complete this project report today. Anju. Emphasis has been laid on sections of Criminal Intimidation and Annoyance.PREFACE AND BRIEF The following project report aims to explain and expound upon the meaning of Criminal Intimidation (Sections 503 – 510 of the Indian Penal Code. The text of the project report exquisitely consists of various comparisons. inferences and interpretations of Chapter 52 of the IPC along with illustrations and details on the intricate nuances of the subject matter in question. who not only encouraged me to go forward with this project report but also propagated all my ideologies and interpretations about the same.Mrs. .

1257. Thank you! (Nimanniyu Sharma) INTRODUCTION “Intimidation is (a tort and) a crime of applying legally unjustifiable threats or force to a person to compel him to do some or to refrain him from doing anything which he is legally bound to do. It is a classification of acts which are meant to intimidate or threaten others. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Publications. Criminal Intimidation can be explained in a similar sense. arranged between the aforesaid sections. without whose help I would not have been able to complete my research for this project report.. Nitika Marya. Criminal Intimidation. 1980. It is any act of an individual against another individual that is directed to scare or discourage another individual from performing a certain act (omitting) or to encourage and force him to do a certain act which is not in consonance with general law (illegal).html (Last visited on 14. namely.09.I. under Sections 503 – 510. 2009. The IPC 3 deals with such acts in Chapter 52.”1 -Walker Intimidation in general language purview means. or to cause annoyance or insult to others in such a way that the act in turn provokes others to break the law and cause a breach of peace. which he otherwise might have refrained from. .elook. K. 646. Causing Insult and Annoyance.2010) 3 Indian Penal Code. Tenth Edition.I would also like to extend my gratitude to Ms. Pg. It deals with three varieties of offences. PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law. “A communication that makes you afraid to try something”2. Pg. 1860. http://www. Nagpur. 4 Classification taken from “Vibhute. The Sections in turn can be analysed as:-4 1 2 Oxford Companion to Law.org/dictionary/intimidation.

” The explanation to the same section indicates that. (Sourced from the Bare Act) . Indian Penal Code. B threatens to burn down A’s house. 5 6 Explanation to Section 503. threat of killing. (Sourced from the Bare Act) Illustration to Section 503. Punishment for Criminal Intimidation. is within this section.“To desist A from prosecuting a civil suit. Insult to the Modesty of a provoke Breach of Peace. 508: Definition of Criminal Intimidation. Misconduct in a public place by a Definition of Intentional Insult to Public Mischief. dismissal.” 5 Exemplifications of the same can be:. ‘Criminal Intimidation’ will be dealt with in depth in the later parts of this project report. constituting in all. PART A CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION As per Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code. vengeance. Criminal Intimidation through Anonymous Communication and Criminal Inducement. “A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested. 1860. or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. beating.• • • Section 503: Section 506: Section 507. of ruining a person by false cases. picketing. as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” 6 Otherwise. if he does so. with intent to cause alarm to that person. or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do. Indian Penal Code. • • • • Section 504: Section 505: Section 509: Woman. imprisonment. Such an act amounts to Criminal Intimidation. reputation or property. 1860. 1860: “Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person. and that of committing Suicide (threat by Son to Father) are all covered in this section. Section 510: Drunken Person. The above mentioned three clusters of offences. or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do. commits criminal intimidation.

2..com/dictionary/meaning/pleader/) (Last visited on 14. Therefore the Ingredients7 of an act tantamounting to Criminal Intimidation would be foremost threatening an individual and that too with one of the above intents. Law Publishers Pvt. 1860) Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication. 13th Edition. 7 8 Gour. Pg. 1860: “The word "person" includes any Company of Association of body of persons. 2.” .“Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication. which is still an indirect threat. Criminal Law Journal 2 (1964) 85 9 Section 507. a special pleader. An exemplification is a threat to a person’s pleader 10. Ltd.” 10 “One who draws up or forms pleas. The Indian Penal Code. as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats.. In the above section. (Indian Penal Code. Cause alarm to that person.8 the threat referred was required to be a ‘threat communicated’ (including communication mentioned in Section 5079 or ‘uttered’ with the intention of being communicated to the person threatened for the purpose of influencing his mind. Person. the draughtsman of pleas or pleadings in the widest sense. such injury is only considered as Criminal Intimidation when it is done with ‘intent’ to: 1. Property. the important terms to be noted are:1. it only means the ‘individuality of a human being’.09.2010) 11 Section 11. Hari Singh. The threat maybe direct or indirect and it must be made with the intention expressed in the above section. as. in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section. Here. Person: The word person in this section has a limited meaning as compared to the meaning given in Section 1111 of IPC. Also. 3. As held in Chandi Charan v. or 4. Dr. Person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested. Bhabataran. Reputation. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years. or 3. Indian Penal Code.A person is said to have committed Criminal Intimidation only when he threatens another with an injury to his: 1.” (Sourced from: http://thinkexist. Cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do. 2006. or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes. whether incorporated or not. Cause to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do. 734.

The intent was not only just to cause alarm to the daughter and her father but also to induce the father to pay the ‘hush money’ which would come under the purview of causing another to do an act which he is not legally bound to do. Law Publishers Pvt. the victim and his daughter were asked to pay some ‘hush money’ lest obscene pictures of the daughter would have been made public. Emperor AIR 1931 Allahbad 263. 1834 (Inception traced to Charter Act. 13th Edition. Nabhagana Behra13. To add to that. the threatening was quite evident as was the intent too.16 PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION 12 13 Gour. 1833) 15 AIR 1960 SC 154. Here.12 3. the Orissa High Court examined the meaning of the term ‘alarm’ and came to the conclusion that the intent to cause alarm must be present irrespective of the fact whether alarm is caused or not in consequence. 14 First Indian Law Commission. The Indian Penal Code. Hari Singh. When evidence was disclosed. 735. Reputation: It connotes honour. The second part refers to the intent with which the threatening is done. Orissa High Court. 3559. the Supreme Court decided that the section in question was to be divided into two parts for the sake of sound explanation: 1. Pg. ability and other qualities as said above. reputation or property or of the person. Alarm: In Amulya Kumar Behra v. Criminal Law Journal 177 (SC) 16 Ragubar Dayal v. reputation or property of another in whon the person is interested. credit. Ltd. It is the general estimation in which a person is held with reference to moral character.2. Criminal Law Journal 465 (Allahbad) . Dr. 2006.14 The scope of Section 503 was elaborated in Ramesh Chandra Arora v.. the nature of injury inflicted should anyway be ‘Illegal’ to make a person liable for Criminal Intimidation under the said provisions. 2. The first part refers to the act of actual threatening of another person. standing. character or good name. The court also noted the fact that ‘distress’ and ‘terror’ were the words proposed initially to be where the term ‘alarm’ is found today. State15 In this case. (1995) Criminal Law Journal.

To this.dictometer. or grievous hurt.2010) . AIR 1974 SC 35. of the section deals with punishment for graver forms of Criminal Intimidation. If the threat be to: (a) Cause death of the threatened person. or (b) To cause an offence to be committed which is punishable with death or life imprisonment or with imprisonment for a term of up to seven years. or with both.18 Now. State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. or both. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt. or with fine. It states: “Punishment for criminal intimidation. Here Part 2. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years. or destruction of property by fire.com/probation) (Last visited on 21. It is rather interesting to note that both cases involved intimidation of Doctors.”17 A bare reading of Section 506 discloses that the punishment prescribed in this section falls in the following two categories: 1. Indian Penal Code..Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years. etc. as compared to Part 1. or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life].” (http://www. the punishment extends upto two years’ imprisonment. or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. “A trial period during which your character and abilities are tested to see whether you are suitable for work or for membership.. In simple cases of Criminal Intimidation. 1974 Criminal Law Journal 153 (SC) 19 Probation means. or fine.The punishment for committing the offence of Criminal Intimidation has been enumerated in Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. or with both. then the prescribed punishment is imprisonment for a term up to seven years. 1860 (Sourced from the Bare Act) Ramnaresh v. fine or both. or to impute unchastity to a woman.09. we have received two different types of treatments from the Apex Court itself. 1860. comes the question whether the person accused under Sextion 506 is entitled for Probation19 or not.And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt. or to cause the destruction of any property by fire. or (c) To impute unchastity to a woman. or with fine. 17 18 Section 506.

in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section. Section 507 is a corollary to the previous section and is an aggravated form of Intimidation.1. signed with a false name or by concealing his address. the law works towards the benefit of the society. It states: “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication. They should rather be unruffled and not prone to such incidents. who might be reformed rather than turning into rugged criminals in the company of the elder hardened ones while. In the second exemplification in Siyasaran v. on the other hand it gives a higher pedestal to public welfare and that classes/strata of people must not live in fear of such offenders. State of Madhya Pradesh21 it was held that the accused should not receive any condonation of his act even on account of good conduct as violence against a class or strata of people (here.”22 In contrast to actual intimidation. 2. Doctors and staff) must not affect the morale of all Doctors. CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION INDUCEMENT THROUGH ANONYMOUS COMMUNICATION AND CRIMINAL Sections 507 and 508 respectively deal with ‘Criminal Intimidation through Anonymous Communication’ and ‘Criminal Inducement’. the person will be liable 20 21 AIR 1974 SC 35. or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes. (1974) Criminal Law Journal 153 (SC) (1995) Criminal Law Journal 2126 (SC) 22 Section 507. The first case is that of Ramnaresh Pandey v. In both the aforementioned case laws. In such a case. 1860 (Sourced from the Bare Act) . On one hand. it considers ‘good conduct’ of the offenders. this section covers cases when the intimidator commits the offence of intimidation through an anonymous letter. Indian Penal Code. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years. which is direct and by a known person. State of Madhya Pradesh20 where the accused was released on probation on account of good conduct for the sole reason that the object of the act was laid to be to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals.

A has committed the offence defined in this section. (Section 508) .-. A has committed the offence defined in this section. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year. or with both. by inducing that person to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become an object of Divine Displeasure.for additional punishment of two years term. by so sitting. 1860 (Sourced from the Bare Act) Illustrations taken from the Bare Act of the Indian Penal Code.”23 Illustrations to the aforementioned section can be as follows: a) A sits dhurna at Zs door with the intention of causing it to be believed that. b) A threatens Z that. under such circumstances that the killing would be believed to render Z an object of Divine displeasure. or if he does the thing which it is the object of the offender to cause him to omit. A will kill one of As own children. by inducing or attempting to induce that person to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered by some act of the offender an object of Divine displeasure if he does not do the thing which it is the object of the offender to cause him to do. Section 508 on the other hand. Indian Penal Code. or with fine. or to omit to do anything which he is legally entitled to do. unless Z performs a certain act. The section reads as under: “Act caused by inducing person to believe that he will be rendered an object of the Divine displeasure.24 23 24 Section 508.Whoever voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person to do anything which that person is not legally bound to do. 1860. apart from the punishment provided by Section 506 of the IPC. or omitting to do a thing which he is legally entitled to do. he renders Z an object of Divine displeasure. if he does not do the thing in the manner dictated. contemplates the voluntary causing of any person to do a thing which he is legally not bound to do.

Nagpur. PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law. shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-four hours. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Publications. Tenth Edition.”25 This section covers the acts of an intoxicated person.-.26 Also. and mere intoxication is not sought to be covered here.I.Whoever.PART B ANNOYANCE Misconduct in public by a drunken person is covered under Section 510 of the Indian Penal Code. it is very important to note that there is no mens rea required for this offence. in a state of intoxication. 1860. Indian Penal Code. appears in any public place. 2009. 25 26 Section 510. or in any place which it is a trespass in him to enter. 1860 (Sourced from the Bare Act) Vibhute. Pg. It states: “Misconduct in public by a drunken person.. which causes annoyance to others and the general public. or with both. or with fine which may extend to ten rupees. and there conducts himself in such a manner as to cause annoyance to any person. K. It should be noted that only an intoxicated person who causes annoyance is covered under this section. 1279 .

Throwing dirt into street:.Powers of police officers. within his view. inconvenience. 1860 and Section 34 of The Police Act. Eighth-Neglect to protect dangerous places. inconvenience. Curious riding. be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees. there arises a rift in the punishment sought to be given. Sixth. Third. risk.-Any person who willfully and indecently exposes his person. stable or the like or who causes any offensive matter to run from any house.What is however significantly distinct. 1861 into consideration. or trains or breaks any horse or other cattle. than is required.Exposing goods for sale:. on any road or in any [open place or] street or thoroughfare within the limits of any town to which this section shall be specially extended by the State Government.Any person who throws or lays down any dirt. the maximum term for imprisonment under the former is only 24 hours. or by bathing or washing in any tank or reservoir.. any person who. 27 Section 34..Being found drunk or riotous. While Section 510 of the IPC lays down only Rs. dung-heap or the like. filth. on any road or in any [open place or] street or thoroughfare within the limits of any town to which this section shall be specially extended by the State Government. Seventh.Any person who neglects to fence in or duly to protect any well. rubbish or any stones or building materials. etc:. within his view. commits any of the following offences.Cruelty to animal:.Any person who slaughters any cattle or cleans any carcass. commits any of the following offences. without a warrant. or who constructs any cowshed. for loading or unloading or for taking up or setting down passengers. annoyance. Fourth. annoyance. to the obstruction. 50.Obstructing passengers:. to the obstruction. This renders the point of actual application of such sections highly debatable. Second. or commits nuisance by easing himself. or to imprisonment [with or without hard labour] not exceeding eight days.. on conviction before a Magistrate. or to imprisonment [with or without hard labour] not exceeding eight days.Any person who wantonly or cruelly beats. Section 34 of the Police Act. The Police Act. 1861 which clearly states that: “Any person who. and it shall be lawful for any police officer to take into custody. risk. factory. it can extend upto 8 days. etc:. or any offensive deformity or disease. …” Taking both. Fifth. not being a place set apart for the purpose . while under the latter. commits any of such offences namely :First. tank or other dangerous place or structure. . danger of damage of the [ residents or passengers] shall. without a warrant. is the existence of Section 34 27 Clause Sixth of the Police Act. Sixth: Being found drunk or riotous. abuses or tortures any animal.Any person who keeps any cattle or conveyance of any kind standing longer. 1861 lays it to be for a maximum value of Rs.Indecent exposure of person. commits any of such offences… . 10 as the outer limit of the fine that can be charged to the offender.-Any person who is found drunk or riotous or who is incapable of taking care of himself.Any person who is found drunk or riotous or who is incapable of taking care of himself. or who leaves any conveyance in such a manner as to cause inconvenience or danger to the public. Section 510 of the Indian Penal Code. be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees.Any person who exposes any goods for sale. any person who. any person who rides or drives any cattle recklessly or furiously. Similarly. on conviction before a Magistrate.Any person who..Slaughtering cattle. 1861: Punishment for certain offences on roads. and it shall be lawful for any police officer to take into custody. danger of damage of the [ residents or passengers] shall.

The police said Iqbal had been running the TV channel in partnership with Kailash Rattan Dewan. rioting. brother and friends also joined the brawl. Dewan complained to the police that Iqbal broke the locks of the premises they had taken on rent in a showroom in Sector 22 and had taken away the articles. causing injuries and criminal intimidation. his father. Sahil Thapar of Patiala. and Chander Sharma of Jalandhar. The police also slapped a case of attempt to suicide on Iqbal for allegedly banging his head against the police vehicle to deter policemen from discharging their duties. Of late they had been suffering losses in the business and decided to end the partnership.indianexpress. brother Gurpreet Singh along with four friends. Later.Harjot Singh of Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh.CASE STUDY 1:28 The police on the 15th of February. Iqbal reportedly hurled a brick on the policemen and manhandled with them. Chandigarh. Later. Soon. 05:09 hours Chandigarh (Source: http://www. The police arrested his father Labh Singh. Dewan raised objection and today they had a heated argument over the issue. 2010 arrested Iqbal Singh. brother and four friends in cases of trespassing. 28 Express News Service. where Iqbal allegedly banged his head against the police vehicle shouting that he would kill himself as the police was doing injustice to him. Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh.com/news/tv-channel-owner-targets-partner-held-for-c/580301/) . Iqbal’s father. He placed his own furniture in the premises without his consent. 2010. When the police intervened. Amit Kumar of Sector 42. Tuesday February 16. The police said Iqbal has been facing several cases of cheating and other crimes in Punjab. owner of a local TV channel. the police took them to Sector 17 police station.

Ahlawat has been missing after his anticipatory bail plea was dismissed by a Yamunanagar court on June 16. He issued notice of motion to the State of Haryana for July 13. also reported to the police that Iqbal had damaged his property today. 12:41 hours Chandigarh (Source: http://www. who was not himself present in the court. 323 (Assault with intent to voluntarily cause hurt) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the IPC. "If we take the case of prosecution on face value then no case of 506 of the IPC is made out as there is no allegation of criminal intimidation either in the FIR or in the complaint prior to the lodging of the FIR. Analysis: Here. 2010. He also said that the complainant has "improved the versions and changed stand at different times with regards to the offences punishable under Section 354". the act of banging his own head against the police vehicle and also previously hurling a brick at the policemen constitutes the ingredients for the offence of Criminal Intimidation under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code. Vacation Judge Alok Singh ordered that in the event of Ahlawat's arrest.com/news/high-court-grants-interim-bail-to-ahlawat/637015/0) . 29 Tuesday." Jain argued. Ahlawat. He pleaded that no custodial interrogation of Ahlawat was required as only voice samples and specimen handwriting may be needed for which the petitioner was always ready. the owner of the premises.Gurmail Singh.indianexpress. June 22. was recently booked by the Yamunanagar police under sections 354 (Criminal force on woman with intent to outrage modesty). he be released on bail and further directed that he should cooperate with the investigations. Acting SHO of Sector 17 police station Gurjit Kaur said the police was verifying the antecedents of the accused and getting details about the cases registered against them. CASE STUDY 2:29 Former Haryana Inspector General of Police M S Ahlawat was on the 22nd of June. 2010 granted interim anticipatory bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case of alleged molestation of a Yamunanagar-based woman lawyer eight years ago.

UP and Delhi in his search. but had failed to trace him. under Section 506 of the IPC has been because of the outrage to the modesty of a woman leading onto the punishment prescribed under the said section.)) would be applicable. Analysis: The mention of Criminal Intimidation here. The police had also been searching for him in Haryana. Haryana Police had issued lookout notice and alerted airports against him to prevent him from fleeing the country. She claimed to have come into Ahlawat's contact when she had approached the Yamunanagar police in May 2002 to lodge a case of dowry harassment against her husband. It is to be noted that Part II of the said section (sub-clause (c. charging Ahlawat with sexually harassing her when he was the Yamunanagar SP in 2002. The woman lawyer had earlier this month lodged a complaint with the police.After Ahlawat's bail plea was dismissed. . The victim alleged that the officer had insisted on meeting her in his camp office and allegedly tried to establish illicit relations with her.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful