Criminal Intimidation

Introduction

An action is said to be an offence under Section 503 when

someone threatens a person with physical harm, damage to
their property or reputation in order to induce alarm to them.
This creates a sense of fear in the victim, and in order to avoid
the execution of such a threat, the perpetrator causes the victim
to do an act which is not legally bound to do, or causes him to
omit doing an act that he is legally bound to do. It is noteworthy
that Section 503 is guided by a ‘two-fold’ criteria, one being
the Actus Reus component and the Mens Rea component.

Crimes under Section 503 IPC

The offence of criminal intimidation is defined under Section

503 of the Indian Penal Code. The term ‘intimidation’ has been
defined in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as “to make someone
feel timid or fearful.” When a person threatens or intimidates
anyone with any injury or harm to his person, reputation or
property in order to compel him to do an act that he is not
legally bound to do or cause him to omit to do an act he is legally
entitled to do in order to avoid the execution of the threat, it is
said to be criminal intimidation.

It also constitutes an offence under this Section when the

person threatens another with harm to the person or property
of a person he is interested in. This threatening action must
have a tendency to cause alarm in the victim and create a sense
of fear in his mind. The perpetrator may use words or actions
in the way of gestures to threaten the victim’s person, property,
reputation or anyone who the victim might be interested in.

For instance, A makes B sign a contract at gun-point. A is said

to be committing the offence of criminal intimidation under
Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The reason being
that A is intimidating B by holding him at gunpoint, there is a
threat of injury to the person of B therefore fitting into the
category of the offence of criminal intimidation. Another
instance would be P threatening Q by swinging a knife towards
him to hand over the wallet with money to P. This creates a
sense of fear in Q’s mind because the knife could potentially
hurt him and be fatal.

Nature of offence under Section 503 IPC

The offence under Section 503 is a non-cognizable offence.

In case of any non-cognizable offence, the accused cannot be
arrested by the police without a warrant from the magistrate
which orders the arrest of the accused. Additionally, the police,
upon receipt of a complaint under Section 503 cannot start the
investigation suo moto (upon the request of court). The
investigation in such a case can only begin with the permission
of the court.

The offence under Section 503 is a bailable offence. The

accused arrested for an offence under this Act has the right to
get bail. It is not at the discretion of the judge to grant bail or
not. Once a person is arrested for an offence under Section 503
IPC, the person is entitled to get bail from the police station
itself. The accused is required to submit a Form-45 provided in
the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC),
1973. Upon applying for bail at the police station, the officer
has the authority to grant the bail. In case the officer refuses to
grant bail, the accused can apply for bail before the court which
has jurisdiction over the matter.

Furthermore, the offence under Section 503 IPC is

compoundable. It means that the complaint can be taken back
by the complainant upon a compromise between the accused
and the complainant. If the complainant and the accused come
to a compromise, the charges can be dropped against the
accused at the option of the complainant. This compounding of
offences shall take place under Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. However, it is to be kept in
mind that such a compromise must be bona fide in nature. If the
complainant agrees to compromise in exchange of
consideration which he/she is not entitled to, this shall not
cause the charges to drop and the accused can still be
prosecuted for Section 503. Such a transaction would not
be bona fide (in good faith) in nature and therefore would not
amount to compounding of the offence.
Essentials of criminal intimidation

In order to understand the scope of the offence under Section

503, one must first break down the definition of the offence.
The Section provides that:

 when a person threatens another with an injury to his

person, his property, reputation;

 to the person in any of whom the victim is interested

with the intention of causing alarm to such a person;

 to compel him to do something that he is not legally

bound to do; or

 to omit him from doing something that he is legally

bound to do in order to avoid the execution of the threat
is said to have committed the offence of criminal
intimidation.

From the above definition, the following essentials of the

offence can be drawn out.

 It must be a positive act of causing threat to a person;

 It must be directed towards his person, property or

reputation;

 It must be directed towards the person or reputation or

property of anyone in whom the victim is interested;
  It must be done with the intention of causing alarm to
such a person; or

 It must cause him to do something which he is not legally

bound to do or refrain him from doing something which
he is legally bound to do.

Elaboration on the ingredients

Threat to a person

This may be understood as an expression or act of a person

which causes fear in the mind of another person. It may be both
a threat of physical harm as well as creating a state of fear in
the mind without any physical threat. It must be understood
that not all acts which create fear in the mind of a person would
be considered as a threat under this provision. For example, A
threatens B by saying that if he doesn’t follow A’s instruction, A
will sue B in court. This shall not be considered as a threat since
the act of taking recourse to legal action is not an illegal act and
the action of A would not amount to criminal intimidation under
Section 503.

Threat directed towards the person, property or reputation

This Section talks about three kinds of threats. In one case, the
threat is directed towards the person. This refers to the threat
of physical harm or harm to the body of a person. The second
is a threat to the property of a person. The
term “property” refers to both movable as well as immovable
property. Any threat of doing an act which causes the value of
the property to diminish shall constitute intimidation under this
Section.

Any threat of causing harm to the reputation of a person will

fall into the purview of criminal intimidation. Harm to
reputation includes harming the goodwill, insult to the dignity
or modesty etc. The action may be directed at the complainant
directly or towards any person (his body, property or
reputation) in whom the complainant has any interest.

Intention to cause alarm to such a person

This implies that the offender must do such an act with the
intention of creating fear in the mind of the complainant.
Intention to create fear is a key element to constitute the offence
of criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the Indian Penal
Code.

It must cause him to do something which he is not legally

bound to do or refrain him from doing something which he
is legally bound to do.

In order to avoid suffering from the action that the offender

threatens the victim, the victim may do any act which he is not
legally bound to do or refrain from doing an act which he is
legally bound to do.

For example, if A threatens B to hand over his wallet to him or

he will stab B, B in order to save himself, hands over his wallet
to B. There has been an offence of criminal intimidation in this
case.

Interpretation of actus reus in Section 503 IPC

The act of threatening someone with the aim of causing hurt,

damage to the property or reputation or of someone he may be
interested in, shall constitute the Actus Reus aspect of Section
503. This action shall be done by the offender in order to create
a sense of fear and timidness which in a way coerces him to act
in a way that is directed by the offender. In the case of Priyanath
Gupta vs Laljhi Chowkidar (1923), the Calcutta High Court
stated that the threat must constitute a “direct threat” to cause
harm and “not by way of insinuation of probability or even
probability of such harm.” (direct threat is required, not by
any chance or probability or virtual)

Interpretation of mens rea in Section 503 IPC

Like any other act to be considered criminal, there must be a

mens rea for the same. Similarly, for Section 503 to take effect,
there must be an “intention” on the part of the offender to cause
harm to the person, property, or reputation of the victim and
compel him to do an act he is not legally bound to do or cause
him to “not” do an act he is legally bound to do in order to
escape the execution of the threat made by the offender. It can
be better elucidated using the case of Sunil Shetty Chairman
Popcorn Entertainment P. Ltd. v. Puran Chauhan and Anr.
(2017) The Delhi High Court in this case held that the act of
threatening must be with the intention to cause alarm to the
complainant, and sufficient evidence to prove the same must be
placed. A mere expression in the absence of intention shall not
constitute an offence under the provision.

One must be wondering why there is a need to curb such an

offence. It is required since the consequences of such offences
are manifold. Threatening someone induces a sense of fear and
anxiety that has the potential to jeopardise (disturb) the peace
and stability of a society. Such an action can not only lead to
emotional distress but can also lead to the infliction of bodily
harm. In aggravated circumstances, it can even lead to death.
Hence, in order to protect individuals and their basic human
rights, such threatening behaviour must be made punishable.

This article shall deal with Section 503 with a special emphasis
on the scope and nature of punishment of the said offence
provided under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Criminal intimidation and extortion

Similarities

Both the offences involve certain common elements. Causing a

threat to a person is a common ingredient in both the offences.
Extortion requires the offender to intentionally put any person
in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other. Similarly,
criminal intimidation requires the offender to cause a threat in
the mind of a person.
Differences

Despite having these similarities, there are significant

differences between the two offences. Extortion is defined
under Section 383 of the IPC whereas criminal intimidation is
defined under Section 503 of the IPC. In case of extortion, the
act is done with the intention of obtaining property from the
victim. Whereas in case of criminal intimidation, this is not the
only purpose.

Criminal Intimidation is said to have taken place even if there

has been a constructive force; however, in case of extortion,
both actual as well as constructive force is required. Punishment
for extortion is a maximum 3 years imprisonment and that of
criminal intimidation is 2 years.

Difference between abetment and criminal intimidation

The offence of abatement has been defined under Section

107 of the IPC. It essentially means to aid or support an
individual to commit a crime.

There are three ingredients to constitute the offence of

abatement:

 There should be an act of instigating a person to commit

an offence; or

 There should be an act of engaging in an conspiracy to

commit an offence; or
  There should be an act of intentionally aiding a person
committing.

(to induce, influence the other person to commit any crime)

This differs from the concept of criminal intimidation. In cases

of criminal intimidation, causing fear in the mind of the victim
is an essential ingredient, which is not the case in cases of
abatement. Threat is an essential element which is absent in
abatement. In case of abatement, both the persons are involved
in the offence, whereas in the case of criminal intimidation, one
is the offender and the other is the victim. In abatement, an
offence is committed by the person who has abetted; thus, the
person who is abetting as well as the person being abetted are
committing a crime.

Difference between criminal Intimidation and duress

‘Duress’ has been mentioned in the general exceptions of the

Indian Penal Code. As postulated in Section 94, it is a valid
defence that can be used by a person accused of an offence.
When an act has been committed in virtue of being compelled
to do so by means of threat, the person shall be deemed to be
in ‘duress’ during the commission of the act. Duress basically
occurs when a person is forcibly compelled, restricted, or
restrained to do or not do something by threat. IPC provides for
the same as a valid defence by stating that nothing will be
deemed an offence if it was committed by the person who was
compelled by force to commit it by way of threat and if there is
a reasonable fear of death that exists. It finds its roots in the
legal maxim “actus me invito factus non-est meus act” which can
be elucidated as meaning that a man shall not be accountable
for an act that he was compelled to do against his will when his
life was at stake.

Illustration:

‘P’ was caught by a thief and was compelled to open the shop
locker and harm the shopkeepers using a knife because he was
under a threat of instant harm. ‘P’ shall not be liable for the
offence as he was under duress.

The essential elements of duress would be:

1. Threat of instant death;

2. The existence of threat during the commission of the act;

or

3. The accused must not have voluntarily landed into such

a situation.

The difference between criminal intimidation and duress lies in

their ‘mens rea’ aspect. In criminal intimidation, there is an
intention of the offender to use threat in order to compel the
person to do an act, which he is not legally bound to do, or omit
doing an act that he is entitled to do, in fear of execution of the
threat. However, in duress, the person is compelled to do an act
under fear of instant harm. He responds to the harm by acting
under the threat with no intention to do the same.

Punishment for criminal intimidation

The punishment for criminal intimidation is provided

under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It provides that a
person convicted under this Section would be liable for an
imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine or
with both. However, such punishment shall be applicable if the
offender’s action stops at threatening the victim.

If the offender goes on to cause hurt, grievous hurt or the death

of the person being threatened, or causes the destruction of any
property by fire, or causes an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years, the punishment shall be of a
maximum of seven years imprisonment, a fine or both.
Furthermore, if the accused tarnishes the chastity of a woman
while committing the act of criminal intimidation, it shall attract
a punishment of imprisonment up to seven years or fine or both.
The Apex Court has a conflicting view when it comes to
probation in case of convicts under Section 506.

In Ramnaresh Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1973), the

Supreme Court had granted probation to a convict for good
behaviour, who had committed criminal intimidation against a
female doctor. The Supreme Court, however, took a different
standpoint in the case of Siyasaran Vanshkar v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2019). In this case, the fact matrix was similar;
however, the Apex Court decided to refuse the grant of
probation in this case despite the good behaviour of the convict.

Recent case law

State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansar (2022)

It is a landmark case wherein, the complainant was a jailer

performing his public duty of frisking prisoners before letting
them meet anyone. As he ordered for the frisking of the
respondent, the respondent got annoyed and threatened him
that he would get killed and also took the pistol from one of the
persons that came to meet him. The Allahabad High Court held
that the evidence clearly reflects that the act of pointing a pistol
by the respondent towards the complainant was with an intent
to deter him from performing his public duty as a jailer using
criminal force. Hence, he shall be held liable under section 506
of the Indian Penal Code.

Landmark judicial pronouncements under Section 503

Manik Taneja and Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2015)

In the case of Manik Taneja and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, the

appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and had also
paid the compensation to the person who was injured in the
same. The matter was somewhat settled. However, the appellant
was still called in the police station and a very unfair treatment
was meted out to her by the police officers. The police officer
had allegedly threatened the appellant that he would drag her
to court if she did not argue with him. Being treated in such a
rude manner, the appellant was aggrieved and she posted
certain comments about the police officers on facebook and the
way appellants were being harassed by them. One respondent
filed a complaint against the posting of the comment and an FIR
was registered against the appellant.

The Supreme Court laid down the essentials of the offence of

criminal intimidation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case
held that in order for an action to amount to criminal
intimidation as defined under Section 503, it must have the
following ingredients:

 There must be an act of ‘threatening’ to cause injury to

the victim;

 Intention to cause bodily harm to another;

 Intention to cause damage to his reputation;

 Intention to cause harm to his property;

 Intention to cause threat to the body of the person or his

property or his reputation in which the original person
has an interest; or

 Must cause alarm to the victim and cause him to do an

act he is not entitled to do or cause him to omit to do an
act he is legally entitled to do.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case held that the act of
threatening must be done with the intention to cause alarm.
Mere words, in the absence of an intention to cause alarm and
harm to the victim, do not constitute an offence under the
section. The act of the appellants does not fall under the offence
of Section 503 because they did not intend to cause alarm and
were just using a public platform to raise their grievances. A
public platform such as Facebook is meant for helping the
public; it does not attract the ingredients of the punishment
under criminal intimidation provided under Section 503 of the
Indian Penal Code.

Kolla Srinivas v. State of A.P. And Anr. (2005)

In the case of Kolla Srinivas v. State of A.P. and Anr., the accused
here threatened the victim of commiting suicide in order to
evade the payment. The accused in the present case threatened
that he would stab himself and that caused alarm on the
complainant. This was done in order to desist the complainant
to take any legal action against the accused. The question before
the Andhra High Court was whether the threat of self-harm
would satisfy the ingredient of “threat” under Section 503 of the
IPC. It was held that it would amount to criminal intimidation
since the intention was to cause alarm to the complainant.

Shri Vasant Waman Pradhan v. Dattatraya Vithal Salvi (2004)

In the landmark case of Shri Vasant Waman Pradhan v.

Dattatraya Vithal Salvi, the question before the Bombay High
Court was whether intention was necessary in order to
constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. It was set out
that mens rea, or the intention was a primary ingredient in
order to constitute this offence.

The Bombay High Court laid down in order to establish guilt

under the Section 506, it is pertinent to prove the mens rea of
the accused. Unless the accused had the intention to cause fear
in the mind of the victim the provision shall not apply.

Romesh Chandra Arora v. State (1960)

In the case of Romesh Chandra Arora v. State, the victim was

being blackmailed by the accused by threatening to publish
private pictures of the victim. The question before the court was
whether the act of giving online threats would amount to
committing the offence of criminal intimidation.

The Court held that harm need not necessarily be physical in

nature. The accused in this case had threatened a person by
stating that he would leak the nude photograph of the person’s
daughter. The accused was convicted of the offence of criminal
intimidation since it constituted a threat to reputation and was
intended to cause alarm.

Mewa Lal v. State of Uttarakhand (2015)

In the present case of Mewa Lal v. State of Uttarakhand, the

applicant allegedly entered the chamber of the principal and
threatened the principal that he would kill him. The applicant
was a lecturer who entered the principal’s office and allegedly
started threatening him. The issue that came before the
Uttaranchal High Court was whether the ingredients of Section
506 were fulfilled. The Court laid down the ingredients of
Section 503 as follows:

1. The applicant had committed the act of threatening the

applicant;

2. This was done by threatening to cause injury to the

person, property and reputation of the complainant;

3. To the person on whom, the complainant is interested;

4. Further, there was an intention on part of the offender

to cause alarm to the complainant or the person the
complainant may be interested in;

5. Cause the complainant to do an act, he is not legally

bound to do; or

6. Deter him from doing an act that he is legally bound to

do;
In order to avoid the execution of such a threat made by the
offender to meet their demand.

The Uttaranchal High Court after carefully perusing the FIR held
that the action by the applicant only fulfils the first ingredient
of the offence i.e., threatening the complainant and rest of the
ingredients of 503 were not fulfilled. Therefore, the alleged act
by the applicant, does not make the offence under section 503
applicable in the present case.

Conclusion

Crimes such as these, breed a climate of fear and that deeply

impacts the psychology of anyone who is a victim to them.
Compelling someone to act in a certain way or in the whims and
fancies of the offender ultimately, violates the victim’s
fundamental right of freely expressing himself or being at his
own liberty. This causes the wellbeing of the society being
compromised and hampers its overall growth. An environment
of constantly living in fear and anxiety builds mistrusts
amongst the people and causes them to not stand for enforcing
their own rights. The provision for criminal intimidation
guarantees the safety of person, property and reputation to
individuals. It makes sure that a person is not made to act
against his or her will by creating fear in their mind. This
provision acts as a preventive method which prevents an
offender to force another person from committing a crime.
Threat plays the key deciding factor in case of this offence.
However it should be kept in mind that the threat posed should
be practically possible to perform in nature which genuinely
creates fear in the mind of the victim. The punishment
provision for this offence has been designed in a manner which
classifies simple intimidation as well as aggravated form of
criminal intimidation which provides for greater punishment
then the former category.