Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication
Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication. Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section.
Section 507, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 351 Criminal intimidation Close, with changes 76%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
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 by an anonymous communication - included in the complaint as alternative charge
-
Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an appellate court reviews an acquittal order, it should interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons - specifically when the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated or overlooked. Where a trial court has not properly considered the intrinsic and probative value of credible evidence and has relied on surmises, conjectures, and improbabilities rather than analyzing the substantive merits of the evidence, the appellate court is justified in interfering. Minor and trivial discrepancies in witness statements, which do not amount to contradictions affecting credibility, do not warrant rejection of testimony, particularly when the core evidence from the victim and corroborating witnesses remains unshaken on cross-examination. The presence of minor inconsistencies in collateral matters does not undermine the fundamental reliability of witness testimony when the central facts of the case are established.
On this section: Applied for criminal intimidation by anonymous communication - the phone calls demanding ransom were held to constitute this offense.
-
Rashmi Srivastav vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complainant's information is laid with the police but no action is taken, the complainant must approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 CrPC rather than seeking writ jurisdiction from the High Court. The High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to direct police to register an FIR; this is the exclusive domain of the Magistrate who can enquire into the complaint and direct investigation if prima facie case is established.
On this section: Alleged offence of criminal intimidation by anonymous communication, cited as basis for FIR registration sought by petitioner
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.
Questions about Section 507
What have the courts held on Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code?
Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel (11 Mar 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication - included in the complaint as alternative charge. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 507 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 507, section 507 IPC, section 507 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 507 in bns and ipc 507 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel (11 Mar 2013).
What should I read with Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers 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 507 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 507, 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.