Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalises the offence of criminal intimidation (i.e., threatening another person in the manner defined under law), is one of the most used sections of IPC. It can also be said to be one of the most abused sections in IPC. Many a time, even normal words used in a threatening tone, are considered for filing a case under Section 506 IPC.
Also see: Section 506 IPC – whether bailable or non-bailable?
One such case came to the notice of the Supreme Court, recently, in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423. The Supreme Court explained what are the essential ingredients of this offence.
In this case, the appellants were aggrieved with the manner with which they were treated by the police in regard to a traffic accident. They posted comments on the Bangalore Traffic Police Facebook page, accusing the Inspector concerned of his misbehaviour and also forwarded an email complaining about the harassment meted out to them at the hands of the Police Inspector. The Police Inspector filed a complaint regarding the posting of the comment on the Facebook by the appellants and subsequently FIR was registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 IPC.
It is noteworthy that Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of “Criminal intimidation”, which is defined in Section 503 IPC 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.”
In the above case, the Supreme Court interpreted the above section by holding that to constitute the offence of “criminal intimidation”, 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.
The Supreme Court further held:
“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 mind of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of the appellants posting a comment on Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.” [Emphasis supplied]
The criminal case against the appellants was quashed by the Supreme Court since it held that offences as alleged in the FIR were not made out prima facie.
The Supreme Court thus clearly held that mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to apply Section 506 IPC. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work.
