Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.57 seconds)Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 503 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Amulya Kumar Behera vs Nabaghana Behera Alias Nabina And Ors. on 2 May, 1995
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.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs C. Pushparaj on 3 February, 1998
In Subramanian Swamy vs. C.
Pushparaj [1998 (1) CTC 300], the complaint was filed on a speech
delivered by the petitioner which the complainant found offensive
and threatening under 506 IPC. The court observed that for an
offence to amount to criminal intimidation one must look at to
whom it was intended, whether the alarm was caused, what are the
actual words employed. The mere mentioning of sections and
putting a person to face the trial is nothing but the abuse of the
process of the Court. The court held that mere outburst is not
sufficient to hold that it would fall within the mischief of Sec. 506 of
IPC.
Manik Taneja & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 20 January, 2015
16. With respect to Section 506 of IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Manik Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka [2015
7 SCC 423], observed: