IPC Section 506: A Comprehensive Guide to Criminal Intimidation

Posted On : October 31, 2023
IPC Section 506: A Comprehensive Guide to Criminal Intimidation
Listen to this article

Table of Contents


Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a crucial legal provision that deals with the offense of criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation is a crime where one person threatens another with the intent to cause fear of injury, disgrace, or damage to their reputation. This section is designed to protect individuals from threats and intimidation that could lead to harm, panic, or distress.

Here is the text of Section 506 of the IPC

"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— Whoever commits, the offense 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 the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offense 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."

Key points to understand about Section 506

The following are the key points to consider about Section 506:

  1. Nature of Offense

    Criminal intimidation involves making threats to instill fear in the victim. These threats can be related to causing harm, damaging property, or tarnishing ones reputation.

  2. Punishment

    The punishment for the offense of criminal intimidation varies depending on the nature of the threat. If the threat is to cause death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, or other serious crimes, the offender may face imprisonment for up to seven years. For lesser threats, the maximum imprisonment is two years.

  3. Fine

    In addition to imprisonment, the court may impose a fine on the offender.

  4. Gender-Specific Provision

    The section also addresses threats related to imputing unchastity to a woman, indicating the specific protection of women against such threats.

  5. Intent Matters

    To establish the offense, it is essential to prove that the accused had the intent to intimidate the victim. Mere idle threats without intent may not qualify as criminal intimidation under this section.

Case Law: Shrikrushna S/o Babulalji Tawari v. the State of Maharashtra (2020)

The applicant in Shrikrushna S/o Babulalji Tawari v. the State of Maharashtra (2020) was found guilty of crimes covered under Sections 354, 509, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was enacted in 1860.

Mrs. 'S', the complainant, claimed that the applicant tried to give her a chit while she was washing utensils, but she rejected the offer. The applicant then threw the chit her while murmuring his affection for her. The following day, he made lewd gestures in her direction and warned her not to reveal what was written on the chit. Additionally, Mrs. 'S' described other occasions in which the applicant flirted with her and threw little rocks at her.

The Magistrate and the Appellate Court found the applicant guilty of offences under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC based on the evidence, including the chits and other materials.

The Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, however, ruled that the conviction under Section 506 of the IPC was invalid. The court said that there was no clear proof of a threat that would have alarmed Mrs. "S." The specifics of the threat, the language employed, and whether Mrs. 'S' was genuinely scared were all left up for debate. The conviction was therefore ruled valid by the court under Section 506 as not valid.

This case law illustrates the various aspects and interpretations of Section 506 of the IPC. They help in understanding the legal principles and criteria that courts use when dealing with cases related to criminal intimidation, including the need for specific intent, the context of the threat, and the interpretation of fear or alarm in the victim's mind.


Section 506 serves as an important tool in maintaining law and order by deterring individuals from using intimidation and threats to harm others. It safeguards individuals from emotional distress and fear caused by such actions and ensures that those who engage in criminal intimidation are held accountable under the law. To know more about IPC Section 506, it is advisable to contact a criminal lawyer or law firm in your jurisdiction. In simple words, if you are a resident of Kolkata, it is better to contact a criminal law firm in Kolkata.


  1. Is IPC 506 bailable or not?

    Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is generally a bailable offense. However, if the threat involves serious consequences like death, grievous hurt, or destruction of property by fire, it may become non-bailable. The bailability or non-bailability of the offense under Section 506 depends on the specific circumstances of the case.

  2. How do I defend Section 506 IPC?

    Defending against charges under Section 506 IPC can involve various strategies, depending on the specifics of the case. Common defenses may include:
    • Lack of Intent: Arguing that there was no genuine intention to intimidate the victim, and any statements or actions were not meant to cause fear or alarm.
    • No Credible Threat: Demonstrating that the threat made was not credible and did not create a reasonable fear in the victim.
    • Mistaken Identity: Asserting that the accused was wrongly identified as the person who made the threat.
    • Alibi: Proving that the accused was not present at the scene or involved in the alleged act of intimidation.
    • Consent or No Complaint: In some cases, the victim might have consented to the actions or might not have filed a formal complaint, which can be used as a defense.



Written By:


Kolkata | Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Pune | Vadodara | Nagpur | Goa | Anand

Recommended Free Legal Advices
question markWhat is to be done now 3 Response(s)
U will have to send legal notice to both of them and subsequently approach Consumer Court for all this mess.
question markInsurance company is denying to renew my existing comprehensive insurance cover 3 Response(s)
No the concerned insurance company has no legal rights to deprive your car from its own damage insurance.
question markState vs. Mange Ram & Subhash. Offences u/s 323,324,452 read with section 34 IPC. 2 Response(s)
Sir, If you need proper legal advice/opinion i can render with fee.
question markMiscarriage of justice 2 Response(s)
Dear Client, Under Sec.306 IPC, Abetment of suicide. -If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Under Sec.116 IPC whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both; As regards query with regard to nformation whether a district judge have the power to presume IPC Section (306 r/w 116) as IPC Section 306., an order dated 01/02/2022 passed by THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY in CRIMINAL PETITION No.6915 of 2021 in reference the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Panjab, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 99 (SC) may be referred. The object behind clause (v) of Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989’ is to punish the persons, who commit offences under the Indian Penal Code punishable for a term of ten years or more, against a members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes on the ground that such person belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or such property belongs to such person, by higher and more severe punishment. Whoever imposes or threatens a social or economic boycott of any person or a family or a group belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.
question markTresspassing Intimidation Theft Extortion Illegal Occupancy 2 Response(s)
1. Her rights are limited to the rights of her dead husband and is the husband is not getting anything due to the will then she will also not get anything. 2. You can do so 3. NO Fir needs to filed in local jurisdiction 4. Jhansi court will take up the matter 5. You can challenge that compassionate ground employment 6. Yes that is possible.