What is Criminal Intimidation?- Learn with Example

Criminal Intimidation

Section 503 of Indian Penal Code provides that-

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.

ILLUSTRATION

A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.

The offence of criminal intimidation requires either a person or another in whom he is specially interested to be threatened. There must be an intent to cause alarm to the former by a threat to him of injury to himself or to the latter. The intent itself might be complete, though it could not be effected.

But the existence of the interest seems essential to the offence, as also and equally to the attempt to commit the offence, since otherwise the attempt would be to do something not constituting the offence.

Ingredients.

This section has the following essentials: —

1. Threatening a person with any injury.
   (i) to his person, reputation or property; or
   (ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2. The threat must be with intent
   (i) to cause alarm to that person, or
   (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; 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 the execution of such threat.

Chandi Charan Dutt v. Bhabataran Dey (1963)

In this case,

• the petitioner was a bullion merchant at Calcutta. The opposite party was an employee under him. The opposite party left the service of the petitioner on January 31. 1962.
• From February 7. 1962 onwards the opposite party started threatening the petitioner that unless the opposite party was paid Rs. 7000/- by way of compensation he would make some fictitious’ entries in the books of accounts which he had taken away with him, produce them before the sales tax and income-tax authorities and cause irreparable injury to the petitioner and his business.
• It was alleged that on April 7, 1962, the opposite party repeated the threats to one Asoke Roy Choudhury, an employee of the petitioner, asking him to communicate the threats to the petitioner. These threats were communicated by Asoke Roy Choudhury to the petitioner and the petitioner filed a petition of complaint against the opposite party on April 10. 1962.
• The Magistrate has assumed the facts alleged as true but has discharged the opposite party saying that the facts do not constitute as offence as defined under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code. The case then went to Calcutta High Court, the High Court after considering the case, held that,

It appears that on April 7. 1962, the opposite party did not directly threaten the petitioner with any injury to his person, reputation or property but threatened Asoke Roy Choudhury, a person interested in the petitioner, with injury to his business. The learned Magistrate seems to have thought that the treat must be a direct threat in the sense that unless the threat is uttered in the presence of the petitioner it cannot be said that the opposite party threatened the petitioner. The learned Magistrate was wrong in this interpretation.  

The opposite party might have threatened the petitioner even though the treat was not uttered in his presence. If the threat was uttered in the presence of some person with a view to be communicated to the “person threatened it must be said that the person who uttered the threat threatened the person for whom the threat was meant.  

Here it appears that the opposite party repeated the threat before Asoke Roy Choudhury asking him to communicate the same to the petitioner. This is threatening the petitioner and not threatening Asoke Roy Choudhury. If the facts are true, the case comes within the words, “whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property.”  

Furthermore, even if it be said that the threat was to Asoke Roy Choudhury, the threat was to cause injury to the business of the petitioner by making certain fictitious entries in the account books and producing them before the sale tax or the income-tax authorities.  

The threat has direct reference to injury to the property of the petitioner but it has reference to injury to the reputation of the petitioner also as by the threat the good name of the business is sought to be injured and thereby the reputation of the petitioner who is a partner of the business is also sought to be injured. Thus even if it be said that it was a threat to Asoke Roy Choudhury the case comes under the words, “whoever threatens another with any injury to the reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested”.  

So, in any view of the matter, if the facts are true, the interpretation made by the learned Magistrate cannot be accepted as correct.”  

Reference

Chandi Charan Dutta v. Bhabataran Dey (1964)