Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.6. By impugned order dated 25.05.2019, the learned Revisional Court upheld the order dated 24.01.2018 on merits. It was noted that each case is to be decided on its own merits and it cannot be held that that the petitioners had only given empty threats of causing dire harm.

It was held that at that stage, the manner in which the accused persons had acted by breaking into the complainant's house, beating him and threatening his parents, was sufficient to frame charges under Sections 451/341/323/506(II)/34 of the IPC against them.

29. On the other hand, the learned Revisional Court endorsed the aforesaid finding of the learned Trial Court. It was noted that at this stage, it could not be said that the threats levelled by the accused persons were merely empty threats and therefore Section 506(II) of the IPC was attracted. The learned Revisional Court noted that the alleged manner in which the accused persons had acted after they entered the house of the complainant, beaten him and further allegedly threatened his parents was sufficient to frame charges for offences under Sections 451/341/323/506(II)/34 of the IPC.

30. Insofar as the offence under Section 506 (II) of the IPC is concerned, it is trite law that mere exaggerated and empty threats are insufficient to constitute the aforesaid offence. In the present case, a vague allegation is made that the accused persons threatened to kill the parents of the complainant. It is also alleged that Petitioner No.2 threatened that the complainant would be kidnapped if the complainant and his parents don't obey the accused persons. The threats seem to be made in the heat of the moment. There is no allegation that the same caused any alarm either. Exaggerated threats of this nature cannot be said to constitute the aforesaid offence.