TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Sr. No. Particulars
No.
1. Introduction 1
2. Objection 1
3. Criminal intimidation 2
3.1 Definition and Essential Ingredients 2
3.2 Difference between extortion and Criminal Intimidation 2
3.3 Nature of Threat & Injury 3
3.4 Punishment for Criminal Intimidation 3
3.5 Case law : Manik Taneja & Anr v. State Of Karnataka 3
4. Criminal Intimidation by an Anonymous Communication 4
5. Criminal Inducement – Divine Displeasure 4
6. Intentional Insult 4
6.1 Definition and Essential Ingredients 5
6.2 Scope and Nature 5
6.3 Punishment for Insult 5
7. Insult to modesty of a woman 6
7.1 Essential Ingredient 6
7.2 Nature and Scope 6
7.3 Punishment for Insult to modesty of a woman 6
7.4 Case Law : Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K. P. S. Gill 7
8. Causing Annoyance 8
8.1 Definition 8
8.2 Ingredient 8
8.3 Scope and Nature 8
8.4 Punishment for annoyance 8
9. Conclusion 8
10. Bibliography 9
 CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION, INSULT AND CAUSING ANNOYANCE

1. INTRODUCTION

Criminal wrong is a public wrong which injures public at large. It is deemed by law to be
harmful to society even though only individual is affected. Punishment can protect society by
deterring potential offenders and preventing the actual offenders from committing further
offences and by turning and reforming them into a law-abiding citizen. The criminal
activities in India are governed by the provision of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is a
substantive law that describes all the criminal offences and punishes the offenders for their
conduct.
There are certain offences like Criminal intimidation, insult, and annoyance which may not
affect a person physically but they are still punishable under penal law. Although these
offences seem straight-forward, there are several ways in which one can commit them.
As per the statistical data published by National Crime Records Bureau, in there is steady
increase in the cases of criminal intimidation. There are about 1,08,867 reported cases of
criminal intimidation in India in 2019. There are about 7,169 cases of insult to the modesty of
woman.1 The actual number of cases many be many fold and unreported.
The increasing cases of outraging modesty of a woman and domestic violence are one of the
major concerns of the progressive India. Even the industrialization has led to the increasing
number of cases of intimidation. It is therefore high time that adequate safeguards need to be
provided by wider interpretation and implementation of the penal law.
Chapter XXII of the India Penal Code deals with those acts which are meant to intimidate
others or to cause annoyance or cause insult to others in such a way that the act in turn
provokes others to break the law and cause a breach of peace.

2. OBJECTIVE
1. To elaborate the essential ingredients of Criminal intimidation.
2. To understand the scope and punishment u/s 504 and 509
3. To study the definition and nature of annoyance.

1
https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/CII%202019%20Volume%201.pdf last accessed on 03/08/2021

1
3. CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION

3.1 Definition and Essential Ingredients (Sec 503)

As per the Oxford dictionary, the literal meaning of the term intimidation is “to threaten
someone so that the other person acts as per our desire”.
The criminal intimidation has been defined in the section 503 of Indian Penal Code as
“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”.

The definition of criminal intimidation embodies the two main essentials as

1. Threatening a person with any injury to his person, property, reputation or reputation
of one in whom he is interested.
2. Threat must be with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do
any act which is not legally bound or omit to do an act which he is entitled to do.

In simple words the criminal intimidation is extending a threat to another, which results in a
particular set of actions or inaction from the other in order to avoid the threat.
However, a mere threat does not amount to criminal intimidation. The intention is the soul of
the definition of criminal intimidation and the threat must be made with intent to cause alarm
to the person threatened. It is immaterial whether it has alarmed the recipient of the threat.

3.2 Difference between extortion and Criminal Intimidation

Though, the offence of criminal intimidation apparently looks similar to the offence of
extortion as defined in IPC, there exists basic essential points of difference between them.
i. In extortion, the immediate object is obtaining money or money’s worth whereas in
criminal intimidation, the immediate purpose is to induce a person threatened to do or
abstain from doing something, which he was not legally bound to do or omit.
ii. Extortion is committed in the presence of the offender and the victim is compelled to
deliver property through the fear induced. In criminal intimidation, the threat may be
addressed directly or indirectly to the person intended to be influenced. The offence is
complete if the threat reaches the person..
iii. In extortion, delivery of property is the essence of the offence. In criminal intimidation,
there is no delivery of any property from the victim to be accused.

2
3.3 Nature of Threat & Injury
In criminal intimidation, the threat need not be a direct threat. Even if the indirect threat
anyhow reaches the person intended person, the offence is complete. However, the threat
must be communicated or uttered with the intention of its being communicated to the person
to be threatened for the purpose of influencing his mind.
In criminal intimidation, it is immaterial whether the threat has alarmed its recipient, the
threat must be made with intent to cause alarm to the person threatened. Even if the intended
threat has not actually produced any expected effect, still the intimidation will be liable.
However, if the person threatening is incapable of putting the threat to execution, he cannot
be held liable to criminal intimidation. Hence, the threat of punishment by God cannot be
indicted as criminal intimidation.
The injury threatened to be caused, can be caused by the offender himself or it can be
inflicted through others. In order to be liable for criminal intimidation, the injury threatened
to be caused must be illegal.

3.4 Punishment for Criminal Intimidation (section 506)

The offence under section 506 is non-cognizable, bailable and can be tried by a Magistrate of
first class. It is a direct offence where the offender is known.
The punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation is prescribed in section 506 of the
IPC. The person who commits the offence of criminal intimidation is liable to be punished
with imprisonment of either description. The term and type of imprisonment depends on the
nature of the threat.
The person who commits the offence of simple criminal intimidation is liable to be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or both. But, if threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. or the threat is to impute
unchastity to a woman then the term of imprisonment of either description may extend to
seven years, or with fine, or both.

3.5 Case law : Manik Taneja & Anr v. State Of Karnataka 

Facts -The appellant commits an accident and injured a person. The matter was amicably
settled between them without lodging any complaint. But, the Inspector misbehaved and
threatened to drag her to court. The appellant posted comments on the Facebook accusing
Inspector of misbehavior and also complain about the harassment. A FIR was registered
against the appellant u/s 353 and 506 of IPC. The appellant filed petition before High Court
seeking to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings. Appellant’s counsel contended that
posting of comment on the Facebook page does not amount to an offence.2

2
Manik Taneja & Anr v. State Of Karnataka  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141108167/

3
 Issue - Whether the conviction u/s 353 and 506 of IPC maintainable
Verdict – Appeal allowed
Ratio - The court held that for to be liable u/s 506, there must be an act of threat with
intention to do or omit to do any work and it shall cause alarm to the complainant. Mere
expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient. From
the facts and circumstances the Court concluded that the appellants had no intention to cause
alarm in the minds of the respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. The Court
held that the appellant’s act of posting a comment on the Facebook did not attract ingredients
of criminal intimidation in Section 503 of IPC
The court did not held appellant liable u/s 353 as he had not assaulted the public servant or
used criminal force to deter him from discharging his duty and no force was used.

4. Criminal Intimidation by an Anonymous Communication (section 507)

The Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication is aggravated form of criminal
intimidation where the offender commits offence of intimidation by taking precaution of
concealing his identity or uses anonymous communication. The intimidation caused is not
direct and the offender is unknown. Such cases are dealt by Section 507 of IPC.
In the cases of Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication the person will be
liable with additional punishment of two years terms, apart from punishment provided by
section 506 of IPC. The offence under section 506 is non-cognizable, bailable and can be
tried by a Magistrate of first class.

5. Criminal Inducement – Divine Displeasure (section 508)

Section 508 regards the offence which voluntarily causes or attempt to cause any person to
do a thing which that person is not legally bound to do, or omit to do a thing which he is
legally entitled to do, by inducing that person to believe that he or any person in whom he is
interested will become an object of Divine displeasure, if he does not do the thing in the
manner dictated by the offender.
The convict u/s 508 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

4
6. INTENTIONAL INSULT

The section 504 of IPC deals with the intentional insult which intent to provoke breach of the
peace. The object of the section is to prevent the intentional use of abusive language which
amounts to insult, giving rise to provocation causing the person to commit breach of peace.

6.1 Definition and Essential Ingredients (Sec 504)

The intentional insult has been defined in the section 504 of Indian Penal Code as “ Whoever
intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to
be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any
other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”

The essential ingredients of the offence are

i. The accused person must intentionally insult another person
ii. The insult should such that it provokes another person
iii. There must be the intention or knowledge that such provocation will cause that person
to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

In simple words a person is liable for causing others to commit breach of peace in a manner
similar to those who openly abet or incite the commission of the offence.

6.2 Scope and Nature

Just an act of insulting another person or just the reaction of the complainant does not amount
to an offence, unless it contains the intention or knowledge of the offender that the insult
would provoke another person to cause breach of peace or commit another offence.
A mere insult is not actionable. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should
provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence. The reaction of the
complainant may vary depending on the sensitiveness of each individual
The insult may be inferred not merely from the words used but also from the tone and
manner in which the words are spoken. Also, mere breach of good manners does not
constitute an offence.

6.3 Punishment
As prescribed in section 504 of the IPC, the person who commits the offence of intentional
insult is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine or with both.

5
7. INSULT TO MODESTY OF A WOMAN (Sec 509)
The section 509 of IPC is referred as the eve-teasing section and its main objective is to
protect the modesty and chastity of a woman 3. The offence under this section is cognizable,
bailable, non-compoundable and can be tried by a Magistrate of first class.
The offence of insult to modesty of a woman has been defined in the section 504 of Indian
Penal Code as “Whoever intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word,
makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall
be heard or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the
privacy of such woman shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and also with fine”.

7.1 Essential Ingredient

As embodied by the definition the essential ingredients are
i. The intention to cause the modesty of a woman.
ii. The insult must be caused by uttering some word, or making some sound or gesture
or exhibiting any object so as to be heard or seen by such woman or intruding upon
privacy of such woman.

7.2 Nature and Scope

The act of insulting the modesty of woman does not amount to an offence unless there is
intention to insult the modesty of a particular woman. Intention to insult the modesty of any
class or section of women does not amount to an offence.
It is not necessary that the exact words spoken or uttered by the accused need to be proved.
For the offence u/s 509, it is sufficient if the intention can be gathered from the evidence.
When a modesty of a woman is insulted by exhibiting the object, it is not necessary that the
offender himself should personally exhibit the object, it can be done through his agent.

This section mainly addresses the issue of eve-teasing or street-sexual harassment. In this
modern time, the wider interpretation of this section has been applied to the digital world to
curb online stalking and harassment.

7.3 Punishment
As prescribed in section 509 of the IPC, the person who insults the modesty of a woman is
liable to be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years,
and also with fine.

3
https://blog.ipleaders.in/youre-sexually-harassed/ last accessed on 03/08/2021

6
7.4 Case Law : Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (AIR 1996 SC 309)
Fact – Petitioner had filed complaint against the respondent who was a high-ranked police
officer alleging that he uttered words, made gestures and slapped her at posterior amounting
to insult of her modesty. The petitioner alleged that the police had not conducted
investigation in fair and impartial manner. The respondent moved the High Court for
quashing the FIR. The High Court stayed the investigation and upon hearing quashed both
the FIR and the complaint. The aggrieved petitioner filed petition in Supreme Court4.
Issue - Whether the act of respondent constitute an offence u/s 354 and u/s 509.
Verdict – Petition allowed.
Ratio – The Court first considers that whether respondent intended to outrage or knew it to be
likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty .The Court held that the intention and
knowledge are state of mind and cannot be proved by direct evidence. They have to be
inferred from the attending circumstances. On examining the FIR the court found that the
respondent had the requisite culpable intention to outrage. The Court held that an offence
under Section 509 IPC has been constituted as the words used and gestures made by Mr. Gill
were intended to insult the modesty. The Court directed the trial court to dispose of the
expeditiously.

8. CAUSING ANNOYANCE
4
Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill https://indiankanoon.org/doc/579822/

7
8.1 Definition (Sec 510)
The section 510 of IPC defines annoyance caused by misconduct in public by a drunken
person as ‘Whoever, in a state of intoxication, appears in any public place, or in any place
which it is a trespass in him to enter, and there conducts himself in such a manner as to
cause annoyance to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to twenty-four hours or with fine which may extend to ten rupees or with
both’.

8.2 Ingredient
For constituting an offence of annoyance essential ingredients are
i. Intoxicated state of the accused
ii. Appearance of accused in the public place.
iii. The conduct of accused that causes annoyance to any other person.

8.3 Scope and Nature

Only an intoxicated person who causes annoyance to others and the general public is
actionable u/s 510. Mere act of intoxication is not actionable. The nature of the annoyance
may be causing annoyance in public or refusing to leave a place where he has no right to
enter without permission of the owner. No mens rea is required for the offence of annoyance
u/s 510.

8.4 Punishment
A person who causes annoyance u/s 510 is liable for punishment of simple imprisonment for
a term which may extend to twenty-four hours or with fine which may extend to ten rupees
or with both

9. CONCLUSION
There offences like Criminal intimidation, insult, and annoyance may not affect a person
physically but they are still punishable under IPC. Criminal intimidation provides preventive
punishment wherein the accused is punished for threatening and not for the actual
commission of the offence. It is immaterial whether the actual crime occurred or not.
With the rapid industrialization the cases of outraging modesty of a woman are also
increasing. The modesty of a woman cannot be protected merely by inflicting punishment.
No leniency should be shown to the accused. Also existing punishment for the offence of
annoyance is not sufficient enough to prevent it.
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

8
Statute
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Books
1. Law of Crimes, Criminal Law, 14th edition, LexisNexis, 2021
2. K.D. Gaur, Indian Penal Code, Seventh edition, LexisNexis, 2021

Webliography
1. https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/CII%202019%20Volume%201.pdf last
accessed on 03/08/2021
2. https://lawyog.com/a-comprehensive-analysis-of-criminal-intimidation/

Case laws
1. Manik Taneja & Anr v. State Of Karnataka  a
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141108167/
2. Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/579822/