Punishment for criminal intimidation
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with 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; The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
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], of 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.
Section 506, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 351 Criminal intimidation Close, with changes 83%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 11
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 260 Power to try summarily
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 260 Power to try summarily
- Code of Criminal Procedure (Goa, Daman and Diu Amendment) Act s. 2 Amendment of section 156
- Indian Contract Act s. 15 "Coercion" defined
- Criminal Law Amendment Act s. 10 Power of State Government to make certain offences cognizable and non-bailable
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 260 Power to try summarily
- Crpc 1973 s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 260 Power to try summarily
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-14.pdf 2015-01-20 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 141/2015. Banumathi/Gowda. A Facebook comment about hospital treatment does not, without more, make out IPC 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant) or IPC 503/506 criminal intimidation (intent to cause alarm). Mere words without the statutory ingredients do not sustain the FIR. CrPC 482 already filled — do not remap.
On this section: s.506 punishes criminal intimidation as defined in s.503; without the s.503 ingredients the punishment section is not attracted (Manik Taneja).
-
Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings initiated on allegations that fail to disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences charged, where the underlying dispute is fundamentally civil in nature (employment termination), and where procedural irregularities and discrepancies suggest deliberate misclassification of the matter to transform a civil dispute into criminal proceedings for purposes of coercion or settlement, constitute an abuse of legal process and travesty of justice warranting quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The essential ingredients of criminal offences must be strictly established: Section 323 requires voluntary act of causing actual hurt; Sections 504 and 509 require specific intentional insult with contextual details and intent to provoke or shock sense of decency; Section 506 requires threat with intent to cause alarm, not mere assertion of consequences of lawful termination. Mere allegations without substantiation of these ingredients do not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
On this section: Criminal intimidation - Court found threat to resign or face dismissal constitutes civil dispute regarding illegal termination, not criminal intimidation; no intent to cause alarm established
-
State of Haryana vs Janak Singh & Etc
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a court maintains conviction of an accused for rape under Section 376 IPC, the court is statutorily bound to impose a sentence of at least seven years imprisonment unless it assigns adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment for imposing a sentence of less than seven years. Merely stating that reduction is 'just and expedient' does not constitute adequate and special reasons as required by the proviso to Section 376(1) IPC. Such adequate and special reasons must contain extenuating circumstances which justify deviation from the minimum prescribed sentence. Sentence bargaining and casual reduction of sentences without proper reasons violate both the letter and spirit of Section 376 IPC and constitute an injustice to the victim and society.
On this section: Criminal intimidation; respondent Joginder Singh convicted under this section with one year imprisonment; respondent Janak Singh also convicted
-
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for public service appointment, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability based on the nature of charges, circumstances of the case, and whether acquittal resulted from serious flaws in prosecution or hostile witnesses. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides, illegality, or mindlessness; courts cannot conduct intensive factual scrutiny or second-guess the suitability determination made by the designated public employer authority.
On this section: Criminal intimidation; charged against Deepa Tomar
-
Selvamani vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a victim of gang rape and her family members retract their testimony during cross-examination due to long trial delays and possible witness intimidation, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto. Instead, the court must carefully scrutinize the evidence and accept those parts which are dependable and consistent with corroborating evidence such as the FIR, medical examination findings, and statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. If such corroborating evidence establishes that forcible sexual intercourse occurred, the conviction can be sustained despite the victim's retraction, provided the medical evidence clearly shows injuries consistent with gang rape.
On this section: Defines criminal intimidation. Applied to convict the accused for threatening the victim with a knife and threatening to throw her on the railway track.
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Criminal intimidation; cited in original sexual harassment case
-
Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence establishes that members of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons came together with the common object of committing murder, attacked family members with deadly weapons and with common intent as evidenced by slogans and coordinated attack in quick succession, all members of such unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for all murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even if not all members physically perpetrated each murder. The High Court's modification of conviction from Section 34 to Section 149 is justified where the facts establish common object rather than merely common intention. While multiple life sentences can be awarded for multiple murders, they cannot be directed to run consecutively, but term sentences may precede and commence before life sentences in accordance with Section 31 CrPC.
On this section: Criminal intimidation. Cited in charge-sheet for threats made during the attack.
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly and mass murder, where eyewitnesses testify to the presence of multiple armed persons acting in concert with a common object to commit murder, and where the accused are heard shouting slogans indicating intent to kill, the conviction can be upheld under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even if the charge was originally framed under Section 34 IPC, provided the evidence establishes the common object of the assembly and the participation of the accused in the unlawful assembly. The vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful assembly for acts committed in prosecution of the common object is established when eyewitness testimony is credible and corroborated by other evidence such as recovered weapons and the nature of the attack.
On this section: Criminal intimidation; applied to convict accused for threatening the victims
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly of five or more armed persons with a common object attacks and kills multiple persons in a coordinated manner demonstrating shared purpose through actions like shouting incitements to kill, the members of such assembly are all vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even without proof of a pre-arranged plan required for Section 34. The conviction does not become fatal merely because originally charged under Section 34 if the evidence establishes the elements of Section 149 and no prejudice is shown.
On this section: Criminal intimidation by threat of grievous hurt; applied as part of the charge-sheet
-
Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving circumstantial evidence and conspiracy, eyewitness identification without test identification parade is admissible and can support conviction if the witness is trustworthy and reliable, provided such identification is corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confessions, recovered weapons, telephonic communications and documents. However, mere telephonic communications without proof of exclusive control or personal involvement in conspiatorial acts are insufficient to establish guilt when the communications are explainable by familial or legitimate relationships. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through competent and corroborating evidence.
On this section: Applied in early FIR No. 38 for criminal intimidation charges in the false fraud case filed by Jassi's family
-
In Re: vs Indian Woman Says Gang-raped on Orders
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The State has a constitutional duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the freedom of choice in marriage and protection from sexual violence. When the State fails to prevent grave violations of these fundamental rights such as gang rape, the State is duty bound to provide substantial monetary compensation to the victim for rehabilitation and must implement systemic reforms including police vigilance, mandatory victim protection procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code, and long-term victim rehabilitation. Panchayats and village councils have no legal authority to order, authorize, or participate in violence or sexual assault, and such acts constitute unlawful assemblies and barbaric crimes deserving harsh punishment. The investigating agency must comply with mandatory procedural requirements including recording rape FIRs and victim statements exclusively by women police officers, invoking all applicable criminal sections, obtaining and certifying all evidence properly, and investigating larger conspiracies if any.
On this section: Court held this offence should have been invoked for threats made by panchayat and persons involved; instructed investigating agency to amend charge sheet accordingly
-
Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An Editor whose name is printed on a newspaper is presumed under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, to be responsible for the selection of matter published in every portion of the newspaper, including editions published from different locations with separate resident editors, unless the Editor proves to the contrary. At the stage of cognizance and issuance of process on a complaint, allegations of knowledge and involvement of the Editor in the publication of defamatory content must be accepted as true; the High Court cannot quash the prosecution based on an assumption that the Editor lacked knowledge when specific allegations establishing such knowledge are pleaded in the complaint. The presumption of editorial responsibility is rebuttable, but the burden to rebut it arises only after the allegation is established or at trial, not at the stage of cognizance.
On this section: Criminal intimidation - included in the complaint as alternative charge
-
Manisha Tyagi vs Deepak Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Division Bench of the High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Single Judge regarding the non-establishment of cruelty and grant a decree of divorce when the appeal before it was filed by the wife challenging judicial separation, not by the husband seeking divorce. The reversal must be based on compelling necessity or glaring errors resulting in miscarriage of justice. Where both parties are at fault and no party has appealed for divorce, judicial separation is the appropriate remedy, and either party may seek divorce after the statutory one-year period.
On this section: Criminal intimidation; wife filed FIR under this section
-
Reena Devi vs State (govt of Nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment when the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence and correctly applied the burden of proof standard (beyond reasonable doubt). The acquittal judgment of the trial court is upheld when the appellate court finds no perversity or misapplication of law in the trial court's reasoning.
On this section: Criminal intimidation - applied to the original FIR allegations
-
Shilpa Sonu Singh vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused woman has undergone substantial incarceration (approximately two years) pending trial on serious charges, and considering her gender as a recognized factor in bail jurisprudence, bail may be granted on humanitarian grounds even when the High Court has previously rejected the bail application, without detailed examination of the charge's gravity or the evidence's strength.
On this section: Charge of criminal intimidation by anonymous communication
-
Suchet Singh vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because it follows a civil or criminal proceeding. Each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances. The determination of whether an FIR is a counterblast often involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and such determination should be left to the wisdom of the trial court. When allegations in an FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations, and criminal proceedings cannot be terminated at the initial stage by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Offence of criminal intimidation; cited as one of the offences in the impugned FIR
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… PC Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.9780 of 2022. The allegations levelled by the petitioner in the complaint case were of offences under Section 498A, 325 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In fact, the petitioner had arrayed ten persons in the complaint; her husband, his parents, two brothers of his father, their wives and three children of three brothers, totalling ten. The Magistrate after perusing the complaint, by the …
-
… by VARSHA MENDIRATTA Date: 2025.04.17 15:13:40 IST Reason: 2024 wherein the High Court has allowed anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [1]( page-1-0) to respondent no. 2 (Abdul Razzak) in connection with FIR No. 176 of 2023 registered at P.S. Omti, Distt. Jabalpur under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [2]( page-1-1) <span id="page-1-1"></span><span id="page-1-0"></span> 3. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the case is that at around 1.00 P.M on 30.03.2023, the appellant went to Victoria Hospital along with his friend (Sandeep Dubey) for a checkup. Respondent No. 2 …
-
… Construction, which is the complainant's (respondent No.4 herein) entity, to obtain manpower. It is alleged in the subject FIR that 'YSSS' in connivance with the other accused defaulted payment to the complainant's company. The subject FIR was registered under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter, 'the IPC') against the accused, including the appellant herein on the allegation that 'YSSS', in connivance with the other accused defaulted payment to the company to the tune of Rs.9 Crores. Pursuant to the lodgement of the FIR, the appellant received notices …
Questions about Section 506
What have the courts held on Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code?
Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (20 Jan 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.506 punishes criminal intimidation as defined in s.503; without the s.503 ingredients the punishment section is not attracted (Manik Taneja). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 506, section 506 IPC, section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 506 punishment in hindi and ipc 506 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (20 Jan 2015).
What should I read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
11 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 351 (Criminal intimidation), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 506, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.