Section 506 IPC - Punishment For Criminal Intimidation - Ipleaders

7/5/23, 2:29 AM Section 506 IPC : punishment for criminal intimidation - iPleaders
Section 506 IPC : punishment for criminal

intimidation
By Shoronya Banerjee - February 16, 2022
This article is written by Ashutosh Singh, a student at Amity Law School, Amity University,
Kolkata. This article explains the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with judicial opinions in the matter.
This article has been published by Shoronya Banerjee.
Table of Contents 
https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-506-ipc-punishment-for-criminal-intimidation/ 1/19
1. Introduction
2. Description of Section 503 IPC, 1860
2.0.1. Illustrations
3. Essentials of Section 503 IPC, 1860
3.1. Alarm
3.2. Injury
3.3. Intimidation
3.4. Intention
3.5. Threat
3.6. Case laws
3.6.1. Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)
3.6.2. Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015)
3.6.3. Romesh Chandra Arora v. State (1960)
4.0.1. Shrikrushna S/o Babulaji Tawari v. the State of Maharashtra, Criminal (2020)
4.0.2. Exception
4.0.3. Nature and extent of the threat
4.0.4. Nature of the threatening words or action
6. Steps to be taken when faced with criminal intimidation
7. Scope of Section 506 IPC under different State Governments
8. Important judgments
8.1. Shri Padma Mohan Jamatia v. Smt. Jharna Das Baidya (2019)
8.2. Amitabh Adhar v. NCT of Delhi (2000)
8.3. Subramanian Swamy (Dr.) v. C. Pushparaj, (1998)
8.4. Kanshi Ram v. State (2000)
8.5. Tilak Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2016)
9. Conclusion
10. References
Introduction
The provisions for criminal intimidation are given under Section 503 to Section 507 under
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The general public sometimes gets confused between
extortion, assault and criminal intimidation. Section 503 of IPC, 1860 describes what is
criminal intimidation and Section 506 and Section 507 are the penal sections that state the
punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation.
Intimidation in layman terms means to threaten somebody and thereby to make them act
or react in a particular manner. In other words, threaten somebody so they do as per the
desire of the intimidator and they are made to do an act they are not legally bound to or
omit to do so to avoid the threat. Section 503 describes what constitutes criminal
intimidation. To understand the punishment for criminal intimidation under Section 506 of
IPC, it is also important to learn about Section 503 which defines what criminal intimidation
is.
Description of Section 503 IPC, 1860

Section 503 of IPC explains that whosoever threatens another person or a person they are
interested in with:
An injury to his/her person,
An injury to his/her reputation,
An injury to their property,
An act to cause alarm to that person,
and makes them do something which he/she is legally not bound to do, or to omit to do any
act which he/she is legally entitled to do, to avoid the execution of such threat is
committing an act of criminal intimidation.
Illustrations
A thief entered the house of ‘X’ and robbed the house and also threatened to kill him and
his wife if they raised an alarm or complained to the police when they caught him
stealing. After the robber left they immediately called the police and as soon as the
police caught the culprit, he was charged with robbery and criminal intimidation.
However, the accused got bail but he was finally held guilty by the Court on charges of
criminal intimidation and robbery.
It was alleged that Mr. ‘A’, the cousin of a blind girl touched her hand when she was
asleep and further proceeded to remove her quilt and insert his hand inside her dress. He
also threatened to kill her if she disclosed his identity to anyone. The girl’s family filed a
complaint against Mr “A”. The Court held that Mr “A” was guilty of criminal intimidation
under this section, apart from other offences.
Z’s neighbour ‘Y’ had built a garage without informing him while he was on a holiday.
When ‘Z’ returned, he protested against this act of ‘Y’ because this had damaged the part
of the property that belonged to ‘Z’. ‘Y’ also abused ‘Z’ with filthy language and
threatened to get ‘Z’ beaten and killed by Y’s hooligans and gunda friends. ‘Z’ was
advised by his lawyer to take the matter to Court. The Court held that the threat to beat
up ‘Z’ and get him killed was a clear case of criminal intimidation, however, the abuses
would not amount to an offence under this section.
Mrs. “A” and her husband had an inter-caste marriage after running away from home as
their families did not want them to get married. After a year, Mrs “A” received letters
from her father and brother saying that they will come to separate Mrs “A” and her
husband. They threatened to burn Mrs “A”’s house and kill her husband as they were still
angry at Mrs “A” for eloping with her husband. Mrs “A” and her husband were scared and
approached a lawyer who helped them to file a case of criminal intimidation against the
family members threatening to harm them and their property.
‘D’ and his friends decided to file a case against a clothes shop where the shopkeeper
took some photos of ‘D’s friend ‘F’ while she was changing and trying out new clothes.
When ‘D’ and his friends were caught by the shopkeeper, the shopkeeper threatened that
he would leak the pictures of ‘F’ and also hurt ‘D’ and his friend’s family members if they
approached the police. Despite the threat, ‘D’ and his friends approached the police in
the first instance. They went to Court and initiated a criminal procedure suit against the
shopkeeper. The shopkeeper was charged with voyeurism along with criminal
intimidation.
Essentials of Section 503 IPC, 1860

A threat under IPC doesn’t need to be direct. Even if a threat is made in public or to a third
person, it may fall under criminal intimidation. It is also important to note that the nature of
such a threat should be real. If the individual who is intimidating the other is not capable of
executing that threat at all, then he/she will not be held guilty for an offence of criminal
intimidation under Section 503 of IPC.
For an offence to attract Section 503 of IPC, the following have to exist:
A person should be threatened with bodily injury,
A person’s reputation or property should be threatened.
The threat should be with the intention to cause harm.
The intimidation should be an act to cause alarm to that person.
The act that causes a person to end up doing something he/she is not legally bound to do
for avoiding the harm that may arise if he does not do it, or cause that person to omit
something he/she is legally bound to do under fear of harm to them by the person
intimidating them is criminal intimidation. Both the ingredients should essentially exist
together for the offence to be complete. The non-existence of any one of them may refute
the charge against the accused. The communication of the threat may happen either orally,
in written form or even by gestures. Thus, even showing provoking gestures can be
intimidating. Even a threat to hurt the reputation of a deceased person in whom the
threatened person is interested is covered under Section 503. Let us understand some
terms used in Section 503 IPC, 1860.
Alarm
Earlier it was mentioned by the Orissa HC in the case of Amulya Kumar Behara v.
Nabaghana Behara Alias Nabina (1995) that threat causes a lot of mental anxiety and
stress to a person which may be alarming but the degree of alarm may vary from person to
person. The alarm caused by the intimidator should be of such a nature that it unsettles the
threatened person to such an extent that he/she loses control over his/her free voluntary
actions. A threat in this case is measured considering a person of common firmness, of
reason, and prudence.
Injury
Section 44 of IPC defines injury. It means any harm that is illegally caused to any person’s
body, mind or repute.
Intimidation
According to Webster’s dictionary intimidation means to make another person afraid or force
them with violence and compel them to do an act.
Intention
It is a mental condition. Intention plays an essential role in ascertaining whether the
accused is guilty or not and the same can be clarified taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Threat
It originated from the Anglo-Saxon word “threoton to lire”, (harass). It is the plan of or a
purpose to inflict loss, pain or punishment on another person.
Case laws
Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

The Apex Court, in this case, observed that simple usage of filthy language does not meet
the fundamental necessities of criminal intimidation. The accusation was that the defendant
went to the home of the plaintiff and insulted him in filthy language with a gun. The
defendant even threatened to attack the plaintiff, however, the defendant escaped from that
place when the neighbours arrived. The bench decided that the above-mentioned claims
prima facie do not constitute an offence.
Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015)

In this case, the Supreme Court said that written statements concerning unfair treatment
by the police to a person on their Facebook website would not amount to criminal
intimidation. The appellant met with a road accident with an auto-rickshaw. The appellant
on learning that the passenger of the auto-rickshaw was injured paid for the expenses of
the passenger’s treatment and the passenger was subsequently admitted to a hospital and
no FIR was lodged.
Nevertheless, she was asked to come to the police station and was supposedly threatened
by the police. Feeling aggrieved and with nowhere to go, she posted comments on the
Facebook page of Bangalore traffic police about their harsh treatment and harassment of
her. The police filed an FIR and registered a case under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC
against the appellant. However, the bench held that there was no instance of criminal
intimidation in this case.
Romesh Chandra Arora v. State (1960)

In this case, the Supreme Court elaborated on the scope of Section 503 of IPC where the
accused intimidated a person ‘X’ and his daughter, of injury to their reputation by
circulating a nude picture of the girl with a boy if the money was not paid to him. ‘X’ had
made the boy and girl take off their clothes and then he took their nude pictures by
threatening to circulate the nude pictures and make them public if they did not pay him
money. The accused appellant was charged with criminal intimidation with the intent to
cause alarm. The Court stated that the purpose of the accused was to cause alarm to get
the money by threatening to post the damaging photographs on a public platform.
Therefore, the Supreme Court convicted and punished the accused under Section 506 for
criminal intimidation and Section 384 of IPC for extortion.

The first part of Section 506 of IPC, 1860 states that when a person is guilty of the
offence of criminal intimidation he/she shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years, or with a fine, or with both fine and imprisonment for
the offence.
The second part of Section 506 is attracted if a person threatens to cause death or
grievous injury or destruction of any property by fire, then the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or fine or with both.
The offence under the first part of Section 506 is a compoundable offence if the parties
compromise and settle the matter and the complainant agrees to have the charges
dropped against the accused.
When a person intends to threaten unchastity to a woman, then the punishment is

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with
fine, or with both.
An offence under Section 506 is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable by the

person who was intimidated when it falls under the first part of Section 506 and non-
compoundable when it falls under the second part of Section 506.
Shrikrushna S/o Babulaji Tawari v. the State of Maharashtra, Criminal

(2020)
In this case, the applicant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 354, 509
and 506 of IPC, 1860.
Mrs. ‘S’, aged 45 years is very happy in her marriage with Mr. ‘R’, her husband. It was
stated in the complaint that the applicant had approached Mrs.’S’ when she was washing
utensils and tried to give her a chit. Mrs. ‘S’ however, refused to accept the same and then
the applicant threw the chit on her and left muttering to himself that he loved her. The
following morning the applicant returned and gesticulated obscenely to her, warning her not
to tell anyone about what was written in the chit. Mrs.’S’ alleged that earlier in this incident,
the applicant used to sometimes flirt with her and used to throw small pebbles on her. After
investigation, when the final report has submitted the applicant denied guilt stating that he
was a neighbouring grocery store owner and Mrs.’S’ used to purchase groceries from him on
credit and did not want to pay the applicant the due money, hence she lodged a false
complaint against him.
Going by the chits at hand and other materials brought on record, the Magistrate and the
Appellate Court held the applicant guilty of offences that were punishable under Sections
354, 506 and 509 of the IPC, 1860.
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, however, held that the conviction recorded under
Section 506 of the IPC was unsustainable because as per the evidence on record, the
applicant threatened Mrs. ‘S’ not to disclose the contents of the chit. The bench said that it
was open to speculation about the nature of the threat and whether the words used were
such as would cause alarm and whether Mrs. ‘S’ as a fact was alarmed.
Exception
Pursuant to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the offence under Section
506 (part 2) cannot be lawfully compounded. Nonetheless, in a legitimate situation, a
withdrawal from the prosecution may be permitted. If the bail is denied by a Magistrate of
First Class, the application processes may be initiated in the Sessions Court. If still
unsuccessful, the case may be taken to the High Court.
Nature and extent of the threat

The description of the current section 506 is practically new since the words “distress” and
“terror” have been substituted with the word “alarm” that is confined to the offence where
the effect is to cause more pain. The words used earlier were not so alarming and did not
describe the extent of the threat that a person suffered. This was done because the anxiety
and mental torment caused by an injury under this section due to threatening/intimidating
may often be as or even greater than the actual injury.
In the case, Ghanshyam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1989), the accused entered a house
in the middle of the night, carrying with him a knife and threatened to kill the residents.
This was held by the Madhya Pradesh HC to be criminal intimidation under part two Section
506 of IPC.
Nature of the threatening words or action

The threat as mentioned in Section 503 and 506 of IPC should be such that the person
threatening can carry the threat out and it must be made with the intention of alarming the
complainant in regard to being prosecutable. A vague statement where the accused said
that he/she would exact vengeance by filing false charges cannot be taken as criminal
intimidation since mere words with no intention to carry out the threat doesn’t cause any
harm or alarm. A simple reading of Section 503 discloses that the threat must be made
with the intention of causing injury to a person’s body, reputation, or property.
Furthermore, the intent has to be to coerce that person to do something that is illegal, that
he/she would not have done if not intimidated, or to omit something he/she is legally bound
to do. The nature of the threat, the language used for threatening and the terms used were
enough to cause fear/alarm, are issues that are up to speculation.

Both Sections 506 and 507 of IPC have provisions for the punishment for the offence of
criminal intimidation as defined in Section 503 of IPC.
Section 507 is actually a corollary to Section 506 and has provision for criminal intimidation
through anonymous communication and criminal inducement Many people do not have the
courage to intimidate a person directly and so they resort to criminal intimidation by an
anonymous letter or by a letter signed with a made-up name or conceal their identity and
place of stay. In such instances, the offence attracts a punishment of 2 years imprisonment
in addition to the punishment given under Section 506. An offence under Section 507 is
non-cognizable, bailable, not compoundable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.
The main essentials of this Section are the same as that of Section 503 but the threat is
given either by an anonymous communication or having taken care to conceal the
name/abode of the person who gives the threat. It is not necessary that both the abode and
name need to be concealed for an offence to be punishable under this section. An offence
under Section 507 attracts a harsher punishment than Section 506 as the punishment
under Section 507 is clubbed with the punishment under Section 506.
Steps to be taken when faced with criminal

intimidation
Where both the accused and victim are involved in a matter coming under the IPC it
becomes a serious case to deal with. A person who is charged with an offence of criminal
intimidation is liable to face a severe penalty if convicted. The victim should instantly
contact a lawyer and directly approach the police authorities or magistrate in a criminal
intimidation case since such a case would involve a non-cognizable offence. A person who is
involved in such a case must know all of his/her rights before and after the arrest. The
intimidated person or victim should prepare a timeline of the events and note it down on a
piece of paper to make it easier to brief the lawyer about the case.
Scope of Section 506 IPC under different State

Governments
Some state governments by notification in the official gazette and the exercise of powers
conferred by Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 have declared that any
offence punishable under Sections 186, 189, 188, 190, 295A, 298, 505, 506 or 507 of the
IPC, 1860 when committed in an area specified in the notification shall be cognizable while
such notification remains in force and be deemed to be amended accordingly. The State
Government thus has the power to declare that an offence punishable under Section 188 or
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code shall be non-bailable.
The reason for taking such a step is because India is a very diverse country and an offence
that is not very serious in one part of the country may be considered very offensive by the
society in another part of the country. Thus, the State Governments were given the power
to change the classification of certain offences under Section 10 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1932. In Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh,
Telangana and Maharashtra Section 506 of IPC is cognizable and non-bailable. However, in
Meghalaya, the punishment is imprisonment of 3 years or fine or both.
Important judgments
Shri Padma Mohan Jamatia v. Smt. Jharna Das Baidya

(2019)
In this case, Sri Jamatia had filed a complaint petition under Section 190 of the CrPC, 1973
against the accused-respondent, Smt. Baidya was a Member of Parliament and CPI (M)
party leader. In one of the rallies, she delivered a certain speech in which it was alleged that
the accused-respondent was threatened, that after the 2018 assembly elections were over,
the president of the State BJP party and its chief campaigner would not be in the State but
the local BJP party workers would remain in the State and would have to face dire
repercussions. In this case, to attract the ingredients of Section 503, Section 504 or Section
506 there must be a provocation of such a serious nature that it would compel someone to
inflict bodily harm to a person or grievous hurt to them. The Tripura High Court in its
judgement said that mere use of abusive words or filthy language and body posture during
the speech of a political leader would not come within the ambit of the provisions of
Sections 503, 504, 506 IPC. In this case, the complainant himself was not a witness to the
speech which was delivered by the respondent. He heard the contents of the speech on
television and also gained knowledge about the speech from the newspaper. Moreover, the
complaint could not show any instance of justifying the provocation, made from either of
the parties, i.e., BJP or the CPI(M) to cause any harm or grievous hurt to public peace. Also,
in the complaint, the complainant neither expressed any fear for his life nor did he ask for
any police protection. In the contents of the complaint, it is evident that the respondent did
not appeal to her supporters to instantly attack or cause harm or injury to any of the
supporters of the complainant.
Amitabh Adhar v. NCT of Delhi (2000)

In this case, the complainant was Ms Bharti Saran who was married to the accused
Sudhanshu Saran. The married life of Sudhanshu Saran and Ms Bharti Saran, according to
the prosecution, lacked conjugal contentment and was marked by constant bickering and
quarrels. The cause for this discord was the perverted sexual behaviour of the accused
Sudhanshu Saran and the demand for dowry. The step-brother and the step-sister of the
accused Sudhanshu Saran were the petitioners. The complainant lodged a written complaint
to the Police against her husband and both the petitioners. Investigation in the matter
culminated in the submission of a charge sheet under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 509, 34 of
IPC against the accused persons. The charges made in the FIR and in the case diary
statement of the complainant against the petitioners did not satisfy the essential
ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 509 IPC. The threats which
were alleged to be given to the complainant by the petitioners also did not fall within the
definition of criminal intimidation because the complainant nowhere stated that the threats
given by the petitioners caused an alarm to her in any manner. Therefore, it was held that a
mere threat does not amount to criminal intimidation but it should also have an intention to
cause alarm to the person threatened.
Subramanian Swamy (Dr.) v. C. Pushparaj, (1998)

In this case, the Madras High Court held that if the complaint and statements of the
respondent are taken together then there were no allegations in the whole complaint, that
the petitioner ever made any attempt to act in pursuance of his alleged expression which
the respondent perceived as intimidation. Even the actual words used by the petitioner
were not stated either in the complaint or in the depositions. In the absence of these
ingredients, a mere mentioning of Sections and putting a person to face the trial was
nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court of law. Thus, the High Court of Madras
held that part two of Section 506 IPC was attracted over here only if the criminal
intimidation included a threat to cause death or grievous hurt. A mere outburst would not
fall within the mischief of Section 506 of IPC.
Kanshi Ram v. State (2000)

In this case, the complainant Isran Ahmed said in his case diary statement that at the
relevant time the petitioner had urged his security personnel to thrash the journalists.
According to the complaint, the exact words used by the petitioner were “Maro Salon Ko”.
But the complainant in his statement nowhere stated that the alleged threat had caused an
alarm to him. On the opposite, the case clearly showed that even after the alleged threat,
the complainant or other media persons did not retrace their steps. Thus, the Delhi High
Court said that mere threat is no offence. Therefore, the threat which was supposedly given
by the petitioner did not fall within the mischief of Section 506 IPC. Subsequently, no
charge under Section 506 IPC could be framed against the petitioner on the basis of the
said evidence.
Tilak Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2016)

In this case, the Appellant developed intimacy with the prosecutrix about two years prior to
the incident. He lured her on the pretext of marriage. The prosecutrix alleged that the
Appellant had sexually and physically violated her at her home. On the next day, the
prosecutrix decided to approach the police station to register an FIR for rape. However, the
Appellant apparently threatened her with death against making a complaint and therefore,
she did not complain. The appellant who had promised the prosecutrix marriage, however,
did not return. On 6th January 2010, the prosecutrix complained to the police that she had
been raped by the appellant. She also alleged sexual exploitation on the promise of
marriage by the appellant. Considering the evidence, the Trial Court which was Sessions
Court, Chamba acquitted the appellant of all charges, giving him the benefit of doubt.
However, on the prosecution’s appeal, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh partly allowed
the same. While the HC upheld acquittal by the Trial Court for an offence punishable under
Section 376 IPC, it convicted him under Sections 417 and 506 IPC.
Conclusion
Section 506 IPC is divided into two parts, where part one is a lesser form and part 2 is a
graver form of criminal intimidation and thus punishment is given accordingly. In IPC, the
offence of criminal intimidation is expressly laid out and tries to cover all aspects of criminal
intimidation. Being charged with a crime, whether major or minor, is a matter of
seriousness. A person facing criminal charges under section 506, risks severe penalties and
consequences, such as jail time, even having a criminal record if convicted, and loss of
relationships and future job prospects, among other things. In fact, complaining under
criminal intimidation itself is being used by many in false cases to take vengeance. With
subsequent amendments, it is hoped that Section 506 becomes more inclusive and in
keeping with the technological advances, social media crimes and changes in society in
general.
References
1. Gaur, K. D. Textboook on the Indian Penal Code. Universal Law Publishers, 2011
2. Criminal laws (Meghalaya amendment ) act, 2013
3. https://megpolice.gov.in/sites/default/files/Criminal_Laws_Meghalaya_Amendment_act_201
4. https://tilakmarg.com/answers/section-506-ipc-whether-bailable-or-non-bailable/
5. “Manupatra – An Online Database for Legal Research.” Manupatra – An Online Database

for Legal Research. Accessed 9 January 2022.
6. https://www.manupatrafast.com/?t=desktop.
7. https://lexforti.com/legal-news/section-506-ipc-criminal-intimidation/
8. https://www.mondaq.com/india/crime/989624/anti-cyber-bullying-laws-in-india–an-
analysis
9. https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/offence-punishable-us506-ipc-committed-uttar-
pradesh-cognizable-offence-allahabad-high-court-189068
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and
various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
https://t.me/lawyerscommunity
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal
content.
Did you find this blog post helpful? Subscribe so that you never miss another post! Just complete this form…
Name
Email Address
10-6=?
SUBSCRIBE!
Free Online (Live only) 3-Day Bootcamp On
Corporate Litigation and Arbitration

100k+ participants across 120 countries have attended LawSikho’s bootcamps
8th - 10th July 6 - 9pm IST

Bootcamp starting in
3
Days
15
HRS
30
MIN
30
SEC
Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder, LawSikho
Harsh Jain Co-Founder, LawSikho
Register now
Name
Your Name
Email
Your Email
Country Code
Select your country Select your country
Select your country

+91 - IN (India)
+376 - AD (Andorra)
+971 - AE (United Arab Emirates)
+93 - AF (Afghanistan)
+1268 - AG (Antigua And Barbuda)
+1264 - AI (Anguilla)
+355 - AL (Albania)
+374 - AM (Armenia)
+599 - AN (Netherlands Antilles)
+244 - AO (Angola)
+672 - AQ (Antarctica)
+54 - AR (Argentina)
+1684 - AS (American Samoa)
+43 - AT (Austria)
+61 - AU (Australia)
+297 - AW (Aruba)
+994 - AZ (Azerbaijan)
+387 - BA (Bosnia And Herzegovina)
+1246 - BB (Barbados)
+880 - BD (Bangladesh)
+32 - BE (Belgium)
+226 - BF (Burkina Faso)
+359 - BG (Bulgaria)
+973 - BH (Bahrain)
+257 - BI (Burundi)
+229 - BJ (Benin)
+590 - BL (Saint Barthelemy)
+1441 - BM (Bermuda)
+673 - BN (Brunei Darussalam)
+591 - BO (Bolivia)
+55 - BR (Brazil)
+1242 - BS (Bahamas)
+975 - BT (Bhutan)
+267 - BW (Botswana)
+375 - BY (Belarus)
+501 - BZ (Belize)
+1 - CA (Canada)
+61 - CC (Cocos (keeling) Islands)
+243 - CD (Congo, The Democratic Republic Of The)
+236 - CF (Central African Republic)
+242 - CG (Congo)
+41 - CH (Switzerland)
+225 - CI (Cote D Ivoire)
+682 - CK (Cook Islands)
+56 - CL (Chile)
+237 - CM (Cameroon)
+86 - CN (China)
+57 - CO (Colombia)
+506 - CR (Costa Rica)
+53 - CU (Cuba)
+238 - CV (Cape Verde)
+61 - CX (Christmas Island)
+357 - CY (Cyprus)
+420 - CZ (Czech Republic)
+49 - DE (Germany)
+253 - DJ (Djibouti)
+45 - DK (Denmark)
+1767 - DM (Dominica)
+1809 - DO (Dominican Republic)
+213 - DZ (Algeria)
+593 - EC (Ecuador)
+372 - EE (Estonia)
+20 - EG (Egypt)
+291 - ER (Eritrea)
+34 - ES (Spain)
+251 - ET (Ethiopia)
+358 - FI (Finland)
+679 - FJ (Fiji)
+500 - FK (Falkland Islands (malvinas))
+691 - FM (Micronesia, Federated States Of)
+298 - FO (Faroe Islands)
+33 - FR (France)
+241 - GA (Gabon)
+44 - GB (United Kingdom)
+1473 - GD (Grenada)
+995 - GE (Georgia)
+233 - GH (Ghana)
+350 - GI (Gibraltar)
+299 - GL (Greenland)
+220 - GM (Gambia)
+224 - GN (Guinea)
+240 - GQ (Equatorial Guinea)
+30 - GR (Greece)
+502 - GT (Guatemala)
+1671 - GU (Guam)
+245 - GW (Guinea-bissau)
+592 - GY (Guyana)
+852 - HK (Hong Kong)
+504 - HN (Honduras)
+385 - HR (Croatia)
+509 - HT (Haiti)
+36 - HU (Hungary)
+62 - ID (Indonesia)
+353 - IE (Ireland)
+972 - IL (Israel)
+44 - IM (Isle Of Man)
+964 - IQ (Iraq)
+98 - IR (Iran, Islamic Republic Of)
+354 - IS (Iceland)
+39 - IT (Italy)
+1876 - JM (Jamaica)
+962 - JO (Jordan)
+81 - JP (Japan)
+254 - KE (Kenya)
+996 - KG (Kyrgyzstan)
+855 - KH (Cambodia)
+686 - KI (Kiribati)
+269 - KM (Comoros)
+1869 - KN (Saint Kitts And Nevis)
+850 - KP (Korea Democratic Peoples Republic Of)
+82 - KR (Korea Republic Of)
+965 - KW (Kuwait)
+1345 - KY (Cayman Islands)
+7 - KZ (Kazakstan)
+856 - LA (Lao Peoples Democratic Republic)
+961 - LB (Lebanon)
+1758 - LC (Saint Lucia)
+423 - LI (Liechtenstein)
+94 - LK (Sri Lanka)
+231 - LR (Liberia)
+266 - LS (Lesotho)
+370 - LT (Lithuania)
+352 - LU (Luxembourg)
+371 - LV (Latvia)
+218 - LY (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
+212 - MA (Morocco)
+377 - MC (Monaco)
+373 - MD (Moldova, Republic Of)
+382 - ME (Montenegro)
+1599 - MF (Saint Martin)
+261 - MG (Madagascar)
+692 - MH (Marshall Islands)
+389 - MK (Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic Of)
+223 - ML (Mali)
+95 - MM (Myanmar)
+976 - MN (Mongolia)
+853 - MO (Macau)
+1670 - MP (Northern Mariana Islands)
+222 - MR (Mauritania)
+1664 - MS (Montserrat)
+356 - MT (Malta)
+230 - MU (Mauritius)
+960 - MV (Maldives)
+265 - MW (Malawi)
+52 - MX (Mexico)
+60 - MY (Malaysia)
+258 - MZ (Mozambique)
+264 - NA (Namibia)
+687 - NC (New Caledonia)
+227 - NE (Niger)
+234 - NG (Nigeria)
+505 - NI (Nicaragua)
+31 - NL (Netherlands)
+47 - NO (Norway)
+977 - NP (Nepal)
+674 - NR (Nauru)
+683 - NU (Niue)
+64 - NZ (New Zealand)
+968 - OM (Oman)
+507 - PA (Panama)
+51 - PE (Peru)
+689 - PF (French Polynesia)
+675 - PG (Papua New Guinea)
+63 - PH (Philippines)
+92 - PK (Pakistan)
+48 - PL (Poland)
+508 - PM (Saint Pierre And Miquelon)
+870 - PN (Pitcairn)
+1 - PR (Puerto Rico)
+351 - PT (Portugal)
+680 - PW (Palau)
+595 - PY (Paraguay)
+974 - QA (Qatar)
+40 - RO (Romania)
+381 - RS (Serbia)
+7 - RU (Russian Federation)
+250 - RW (Rwanda)
+966 - SA (Saudi Arabia)
+677 - SB (Solomon Islands)
+248 - SC (Seychelles)
+249 - SD (Sudan)
+46 - SE (Sweden)
+65 - SG (Singapore)
+290 - SH (Saint Helena)
+386 - SI (Slovenia)
+421 - SK (Slovakia)
+232 - SL (Sierra Leone)
+378 - SM (San Marino)
+221 - SN (Senegal)
+252 - SO (Somalia)
+597 - SR (Suriname)
+239 - ST (Sao Tome And Principe)
+503 - SV (El Salvador)
+963 - SY (Syrian Arab Republic)
+268 - SZ (Swaziland)
+1649 - TC (Turks And Caicos Islands)
+235 - TD (Chad)
+228 - TG (Togo)
+66 - TH (Thailand)
+992 - TJ (Tajikistan)
+690 - TK (Tokelau)
+670 - TL (Timor-leste)
+993 - TM (Turkmenistan)
+216 - TN (Tunisia)
+676 - TO (Tonga)
+90 - TR (Turkey)
+1868 - TT (Trinidad And Tobago)
+688 - TV (Tuvalu)
+886 - TW (Taiwan, Province Of China)
+255 - TZ (Tanzania, United Republic Of)
+380 - UA (Ukraine)
+256 - UG (Uganda)
+1 - US (United States)
+598 - UY (Uruguay)
+998 - UZ (Uzbekistan)
+39 - VA (Holy See (vatican City State))
+1784 - VC (Saint Vincent And The Grenadines)
+58 - VE (Venezuela)
+1284 - VG (Virgin Islands, British)
+1340 - VI (Virgin Islands, U.s.)
+84 - VN (Viet Nam)
+678 - VU (Vanuatu)
+681 - WF (Wallis And Futuna)
+685 - WS (Samoa)
+381 - XK (Kosovo)
+967 - YE (Yemen)
+262 - YT (Mayotte)
+27 - ZA (South Africa)
+260 - ZM (Zambia)
+263 - ZW (Zimbabwe)
No results
Phone
Your Phone
Select Your Profession -- Select --
I want to know more about the lawsikho courses
Yes
No
Save my seat
Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder, LawSikho
Harsh Jain Co-Founder, LawSikho

Section 506 IPC - Punishment For Criminal Intimidation - Ipleaders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 506 IPC - Punishment For Criminal Intimidation - Ipleaders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 506 IPC - Punishment For Criminal Intimidation - Ipleaders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/5/23, 2:29 AM Section 506 IPC : punishment for criminal intimidation - iPleaders

Section 506 IPC : punishment for criminal

This article has been published by Shoronya Banerjee.

Description of Section 503 IPC, 1860

An injury to his/her person,

An injury to his/her reputation,

An injury to their property,

An act to cause alarm to that person,

Essentials of Section 503 IPC, 1860

A person should be threatened with bodily injury,

A person’s reputation or property should be threatened.

The threat should be with the intention to cause harm.

The intimidation should be an act to cause alarm to that person.

Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015)

Romesh Chandra Arora v. State (1960)

Description of Section 506 IPC, 1860

When a person intends to threaten unchastity to a woman, then the punishment is

An offence under Section 506 is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable by the

Shrikrushna S/o Babulaji Tawari v. the State of Maharashtra, Criminal

Nature and extent of the threat

Nature of the threatening words or action

Description of Section 507 IPC, 1860

Steps to be taken when faced with criminal

Scope of Section 506 IPC under different State

Shri Padma Mohan Jamatia v. Smt. Jharna Das Baidya

Amitabh Adhar v. NCT of Delhi (2000)

Subramanian Swamy (Dr.) v. C. Pushparaj, (1998)

Kanshi Ram v. State (2000)

Tilak Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2016)

2. Criminal laws (Meghalaya amendment ) act, 2013

5. “Manupatra – An Online Database for Legal Research.” Manupatra – An Online Database

Free Online (Live only) 3-Day Bootcamp On

Corporate Litigation and Arbitration

8th - 10th July 6 - 9pm IST

Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder, LawSikho

Harsh Jain Co-Founder, LawSikho

Select your country

Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder, LawSikho

Harsh Jain Co-Founder, LawSikho

You might also like