Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)

Amulya Kumar Behera vs Nabaghana Behera Alias Nabina And Ors. on 2 May, 1995

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.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Manik Taneja & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 20 January, 2015

18. As such for establishing a case of criminal intimidation, it must be proved that there was a threat of injury to person, reputation or property and existence of intention to cause alarm to the victim or cause the victim to do any act which such victim would not have otherwise done. The threat must be real and with intention to cause alarm. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka [(2015) 7 SCC 423] that mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this Section. Intention has to be gathered from the circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 159 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1