In husband wife disputes a lot of heated arguments takes place and sometimes Husband threats to wife that he will kill her or will harm her and wife lodges a case of Section 506 IPC.

What you can do?

The Answer to this question lies in the ingredients of Section 506 IPC. The ingredients of S. 506.

Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. “Criminal intimidation” as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:-

“503. Criminal Intimidation.- 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.

Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.”

A reading of the definition of “Criminal intimidation” would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.

In the Case of Manik Taneja & Anr. Vs, State : In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of “Criminal intimidation”. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.

In the case State Vs. Naresh Chawdhary

For making an offence under section 506 IPC , it is essential that the requirements of section 503IPC are fulfilled. The requirements of section 503 are as follows:-

(a) A person threatens another with injury.

(b) The injury is to-

(i) his person, reputation or property, or

(ii) to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person isinterested.

(c) The intention is_

(i) to cause harm to that person, or

(ii)to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, as means of avoiding, execution of such threats, or

(iii)to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding execution of such threat.

Besides the above stated three requirements as stated in section itself, to make out an offence under section 506 IPC, it is also required that the alleged threats also caused alarm to the complainant. Mere threats in itself is not an offence. If the person advancing such threats, is unable of executing them, and if the person to whom the such threats are advanced, do not get alarmed by raising of such threats alone, no offence is made out. The court would like to refer to certain judgments.

In judgment titled Amitabh Vs. NCT of Delhi 2000 CRI. L.J.4772 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed in para 6 as follows:-

“The averments made in the FIR and in the case diary statement of the complainant against the petitioners also do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under section 506/509 IPC. The threats alleged to have been given to the complainant Ms. Bharti by the petitioners do not fall within the definition of criminal intimidation in as much as the complainant has nowhere stated that the threats given by the petitioners caused an alarm to her. It is well settled that mere threat is no offence”.

In Kanshi Ram Vs. State

So far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the complainant Isran Ahmed stated in his case diary statement that at the relevant time the petitioner had exhorted his security personnel to thrash the journalists. According to Isran Ahmed, the exact words used by the petitioner were “Maro Salon Ko”.Strangely enough, Isran Ahmed has nowhere stated in his statement that the alleged threat had caused an alarm to him. On the contrary the circumstances of the case clearly go to show that even after the alleged threat, the complainant or other media persons did not retrace their steps. It is well settled that more threat is no offence. That being so the threat alleged to have been given by the petitioner does not fall within the mischief of Section 506 IPC. Consequently, no charge under Section 506 IPC can be framed against the petitioner on the basis of the said evidence.

In S Ramesh Vs. State

Going to the third offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506(ii) IPC. The only allegation that has been made against the petitioner is an oral threat and nothing more. Section 503 IPC defines the criminal intimidation. The intention must be to cause alarm to the victim and materials have to be brought on record to show that the intention was to cause alarm to the person. A mere threat is not sufficient to attract the charge of criminal intimidation. In other words, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word.

In the judgment in G.Paramasivam and Another V. Dy. Commissioner of Police and Others, reported in 2016 (1) TNLR 489 (MAD),It is has been held as follows:

?9. Coming to the alleged offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C., is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, a mere threat per se would not attract the said provision. The allegation is that the petitioners went to the house of the fourth respondent and threatened orally by showing their hands. A mere outburst would not attract Section 506(ii)IPC.?\

Conviction Judgement

Now here are the facts of conviction Judgement

In the case of State Vs. Baba Sakia

There is no doubt when PW1 &
PW2 were chased with bricks and lathi there will be danger to their lives and this itself causes alarm to the mind of a person and in this case it was PW1 & PW2 who had expected and presumed that there is danger to their life and because of it they entered into their house to save their lives. The intention of the accused persons can be presumed in this case when they chased with bricks and lathi.

Conclusion Example of Criminal Intimidation

1. Use of lethal weapon by threatening.
2. Doing some overt act like twisting hand or throat squeezing while threatening.
3. Showing mobile phone which has defamatory material and threatening to share.

Mere threatening is not criminal intimidation it has to be clubbed with some overt act.

Nitish Banka

Nitish Banka is an advocate practicing in Supreme Court of India and can be reached at [email protected] or 9891549997