S. 506 IPC deals with the offence of criminal intimidation, which is generally known as threatening someone. This section is as under:
S. 506 IPC. Punishment for criminal intimidation.
“506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—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 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.”
It is noteworthy that S. 506 IPC punishes the offence of criminal intimidation which is defined in Section 503 IPC as under:
S. 503. Criminal intimidation.
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 threats, 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.
Illustration
A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B‘s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.
S. 506 IPC – whether bailable or not and if cognizable or not?
As pointed out earlier in one of my answers, in general, Section 506 I.P.C. is bailable and non-cognizable in India as a whole except in States where the application of this Section has been amended.
In states of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, the offence under Section 506 IPC is cognizable and non-bailable.
Likewise, in so far as Greater Bombay (now Mumbai) area of Maharashtra is concerned, offence under Section 506 IPC appears to be cognizable and non-bailable where the threat is 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. However, for the remaining parts of Maharashtra, offence under Section 506 IPC appears to be bailable and non-cognizable.
S. 506 IPC – whether compoundable?
It is also noteworthy that offence under Section 506 IPC is a compoundable offence, i.e., the parties can compromise this offence.
Ingredients of Section 506 IPC
In the case of Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423, the Supreme Court has held 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 this case, it was held that mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of Sections 503 and 506 IPC.
In the case of Surinder Suri v. State of Haryana, 1996 SCC OnLine P&H 582 : (1996) 2 RCR (Cri) 701 (P&H), it was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the gist of the offence (under Section 503 IPC, which is punishable under Section 506 IPC) is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. The threat must be one which can be put into execution by the person threatening. A threat, in order to be indictable must be made with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. As for instance mere vague allegation by the accused that he is going to take revenge by false complaints cannot amount to criminal intimidation.
Speaking with regard to the Second part of Section 506 IPC, in the case of Sanjay Pandey v. Chaganlal J. Jain, 2001 Cri LJ 2127, the Bombay High Court observed that Section 506(ii) comes into play when there is a threat to cause death or to cause destruction of any property by fire.
In the case of Subramanian Swamy (Dr.) v. C. Pushparaj, 1998 SCC OnLine Mad 67 : (1998) 1 MWN (Cri) 261, the Madras High Court held that Part II of Section 506 IPC is attracted if the criminal intimidation includes threat to cause death or grievous hurt. Mere outburst is not sufficient to hold that it would fall within the mischief of Sec. 506, IPC. In the instant case, the averment in the complaint and the statements in the depositions, if taken together, there were no allegations in the whole complaint that the petitioner ever made any attempt or did any act in pursuance of his alleged expression. So also, the actual words used or supposed to have been used by the petitioner were not stated either in the complaint or in the depositions. Regarding criminal intimidation to whom it was intended, whether alarm was caused, if so, what are the actual words employed are not stated either in the complaint or in the depositions. In the absence of these averments touching the ingredients, mere mentioning of Sections and putting a person to face the trial was held to be nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court.
