Mere words without intention to cause alarm are not criminal: HC

S Shyam Prasad

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has said that mere words that do not have the intention to cause alarm are not sufficient to be considered criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

“In order to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation, there must be a threat with intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to do any act which is not legally bound to do. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to make him to do, or omit to do any act, is not sufficient to bring the act within the definition of criminal intimidation,” Justice Venkatesh Naik T said in his judgement quashing the case against three accused persons.

Sugurappa, Siddayya, Basalingayya, all residents of Devadurga in Raichur had approached the HC with a petition challenging the criminal case pending against them in the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Court in Devadurga.

The Court had issued process against them taking into cognizance the FIR filed against them for offences punishable under Sections 448 (house trespass), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

The complaint against the three was filed by one Sharanagouda. The three contended before the HC that the complaint was filed against them as a means of harassment.

The three have a civil dispute with the complainant and in order to harass them he had filed a criminal case. The HC noted that a civil court had granted interim relief to the three persons in a property dispute.

Based on the court order, they had entered the property. Therefore the allegation of trespass is not attracted, the HC said.

The HC also said that the ingredients of Section 504 are also not made out as the investigating officer does not mention it in the charge sheet. As for the allegation of criminal intimidation, the HC noted that one of the accused had lifted a hoe and thrown it on the ground.

But this was not an act of criminal intimidation, the court said.

“In order to satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of injury to person, reputation or property of the complainant by the accused, which should be with an intention to cause alarm to that person or cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat,” the Court said quashing the case against the three accused. (CrlP 201248/2021)