Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Amulya Kumar Behera vs Nabaghana Behera Alias Nabina And Ors. on 2 May, 1995

Ram Shanker Gupta vs . Ram Babu Gupta & Anr. on 29 January, 2021

It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Amulya Kumar Behera Vs. Nabaghana Behera & Ors [1995 (II) OLR 97] that intention is a mental condition which has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. The threat must be intended to cause alarm from which it follows that, ordinarily, it would be sufficient for that purpose. The degree of such alarm may vary in different cases, but the essential matter is that it is of a nature and extent to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and take away from his acts that element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Dharmender Saroha & Anr. on 24 March, 2023

In Amulya Kumar Behera vs. Nabaghana Behera [1995 CriLJ 3559], the complainant alleged that the accused abused him in filthy language and if the witnesses had not intervened and saved him, the accused would have given him more injuries than a mere fist blow. The complainant admitted that he was not alarmed by the threat given to him by the accused. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa observed that creating an alarm in the mind of the threatened person is an essential ingredient to attract 506 IPC and since this important element was missing, it did not amount to criminal intimidation.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ankush Chaturvedi on 7 July, 2023

In Amulya Kumar Behera vs. Nabaghana Behera [1995 CriLJ 3559], the complainant alleged that the accused abused him in filthy language and if the witnesses had not intervened and saved him, the accused would have given him more injuries than a mere fist blow. The complainant admitted that he was not alarmed by the threat given to him by the accused. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa observed that creating an alarm in the mind of the threatened person is an essential ingredient to attract 506 IPC and since this State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 8 of 14 important element was missing, it did not amount to criminal intimidation.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aravind @ Vaidyar vs State Of Kerala on 12 June, 2006

7. The word 'alarm' has been considered and examined by Orissa High Court in Amulya Kumar Behera V. Nabaghana Behera @ Nabina and others (1995 Crl.LJ 3559). In that case, the complainant admitted that he was not alarmed by threat given by the accused. Hence the main ingredient to attract causing alarm was absent and the accused was rightly acquitted. In In re A.K.Gopalan(AIR 1949 Madras 233) it was held that if a speaker at a public meeting threatened the members of the police force stationed in Malabar with injury to the person, reputation or property, then he was said to have committed the offence of criminal intimidation which shows that threat may not always be direct and may not be in the presence of the complainant.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hari Narain Kumra vs Rakesh Chhabra on 24 February, 2018

12. In   the   present   case,   the   allegation   levelled   against   the revisionists is that they had committed a house trespass by entering the house of complainant to commit the offence of criminal intimidation and they threatened the complainant and his family members and asked him to settle and withdraw the complaint against Neeraj Grover, Rakesh Grover and Shanta Grover, which had led to registration of the FIR against them. For the offence under section 506 IPC, the intention of the accused must be to cause an alarm and the complainant must bring on record the material to show that the intention of the accused was to cause alarm. Mere threat by itself   will   not   amount   to   an   offence   unless   such   threat   was   capable   of causing alarm. The gist of the offence u/s 506 IPC, therefore, is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon mind of the person threatened (Ref. Amitabh Vs. NCT of Delhi 2000 Crl.LJ 4772 and Amulya Kumar CR No. 204258/2016 7 of 11 Behera Vs. Nagabhana Behera @ Nabina 1995 Crl.LJ 3559).
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next