What is Section 506 IPC?
Section 506 IPC says that “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.
If the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc - and 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.”
What is Criminal intimidation?
Section 506, IPC defines criminal intimidation 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.
What are the major ingredients of Section 506 IPC?
- There should be a threat of injury
- To a person
- To his reputation; or,
- To his property; or,
- To the person or reputation of anyone in whom that the person is interested.
- The threat must be with the intent:
- To cause that person to do an act that he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or,
- To cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
Punishments under Section 506 Indian Penal Code
Section 506 IPC mentions that in the cases of simple criminal intimidation, the term of punishment may extend to two years, or with fine or with both. Whereas, in the cases where the threat is caused with an intention to cause the death of the person or to cause any kind of severe bodily injury, or if he threatens to cause the destruction of property by using the means of fire, or when a person intends to cause a threat to impute the unchastity of a woman, then he shall be liable to punishment for a term that may be extended to a period of 7 years or fine or with both.
Landmark cases of Section 506 IPC:
Amulya Kumar Behera Vs. Nabaghana Behera (1995):
The complainant had alleged that the accused had abused him badly in filthy language. If the witness would not have intervened or saved, the accused would have given more injuries than just a fist blow. When the Court took the charge of the case, the complainant had admitted that he was not alarmed by the threat given to him by the accused.
In order to bring in application of Section 506 IPC, the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the complainant. Material has to be brought on record to show that intention was to cause alarm to that person. Here expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in application of Section 506, IPC. The gist of the offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon mind of person threatened. It is clear that before it can have effect upon his mind it must be either made to him by the person threatening or communicated to him in some way. Since this important element was missing, it did not amount to criminal intimidation. This application was rejected by the Court.
2. Romesh Chandra Arora Vs. State (1980):
On December 14, 1954, a person whom we shall refer to as X submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Delhi City, to the effect that one of his daughters was being molested and threatened by the appellant and that he had received letters of an objectionable nature from him "for the purpose of blackmailing and extorting money." X said in evidence that he firstly tried to persuade the father and other relatives of the appellant to exercise their influence on the appellant so as to put a stop to the blackmail. He, however, failed to get any sympathetic response from them. In November 1954, he met the appellant and requested him to behave properly; but the appellant, threatened person X and his daughter, of injury to reputation by releasing nude pictures of the daughter until the “hush money” was paid to him. The court agreed that these pictures if made public would undoubtedly compromise the reputation of the girl and her father.
The court had also observed that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to X, so that having been threatened; X could fulfill his demand by giving him enough money and thus ensure that the accused would not execute the threat of posting those pictures on public platforms. This will amount to criminal intimidation as it has raised sufficient alarm for X.
3. Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka (2015):
In this case, the appellant had met with an accident. She was clashed with an auto-rickshaw, the passenger of auto had sustained injuries. She had paid for the expenses of the hospital and the matter was amicably settled. Later on she was called to the police station, she alleged that the police officers misbehaved with her and threatened her with the charges of rash and negligent driving. Aggrieved by this behavior, she posted comments on the Facebook page of Bangalore traffic police accusing the police inspector of harassment and harsh behavior.
Consequently, FIR was filed against the appellant under section 506 and section 353 of IPC. Supreme Court had held that mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring a charge under Sections 503 and 506 IPC. It was found that there was no intention on the appellant’s part to cause any alarm.
4. Shri Padma Mohan Jamatia Vs. Smt. Jharna Das Baidya (2019):
Sri Padma Mohan had filed a complaint petition under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused-respondent, Smt. Jharna Das Baidya. She, being a Member of Parliament and leader of the CPI (M) party, had delivered certain speech on 30.11.2017 at Karbuk under Gomati district. It has been alleged in the complaint, the accused-respondent threatened by stating, that once the 2018 assembly elections will be over, the president of State BJP, Sri Biplab Deb and its Chief Campaigner, Sri Sunil Deodhar would not be in the State but the BJP party workers, being the people of the State, would remain in the State and they would have to face dire consequences.
The appellant had stated that the respondent had categorically threatened the workers supporting the opposition parties, more particularly, the BJP workers, that was sufficient enough to cause breach of peace and tranquility and also with intent to cause fear or alarm to the public and political workers supporting opposition parties like BJP and IPFT.
Tripura High Court had held that the mere use of abusive words, filthy language and body posture during the speech of a political leader is not included within the ambit of the provisions of criminal intimidation under the IPC.
Conclusion:
To conclude, criminal intimidation is a serious offence. The Courts of India uphold the rule of law and also guarantee and protect citizens' rights as under Section 506 IPC. This can be seen through the various judgments discussed above. The strict punishments have been laid out under this Section. However, the punishment for criminal intimidation will only be attracted when the accused does not adhere to this standard of accepted behavior in society.
