A threat of harm to a person's person, reputation, or property, even if the threatening party is not legally competent to execute the threat, constitutes criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

Buckland, J. - The Petitioner Priyanath Gupta who was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Manikganj, of the offence of criminal intimidation and sentenced to pay a fine of rupees two hundred or in default to undergo six months' simple imprisonment appealed to the Sessions Judge of Dacca by whom the conviction and sentence were confirmed and has now obtained a Rule from this Court to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside. The case has been laid before me under secs. 429/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant is one Lalji Koeri, a chowkidar. There was served on him by a peon a document in the following terms :-

Notice for decision of suit. Before the (Body of) Arbitrators at Manikganj, District Dacca.

Civil Suit No. 595 of 1328-29. Claim laid at Es. 2,499.

To

Lalji Koeri, father's name not known of Gheor Bazar Defendant. Whereas the Plaintiff Gabin Bhar, son of the late Jhiguri Bhar of Pechar Kandarhat, Thana Gheor, has brought a suit against yon on the allegation that the Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 have kept confined the Plaintiff's married wife, Parbati and the other Defendants are in collusion with them, that the Plaintiff at the time of his going to Benares had entrusted the Defendants with the charge of his shop and that the Defendants have misappropriated many articles of the said shop and has prayed for the recovery of possession of those articles and of his wife under the decision of Salisi Nispatti Mandali (Body of Arbitrators) at Manikganj and whereas if a case be brought in Court in respect of the said matters there is likelihood of a heavy loss being suffered by both the parties, you are hereby informed that you will appear before me at 10 A.M., on Thursday (the 11th Jaisiha next and make arrangement for an amicable settlement thereof, otherwise you will be put to loss for nothing.

2. Be it mentioned here, that if the Defendants do not put in an answer on the aforesaid date, the suit will be decreed on the evidence of the Plaintiff and no objection will be allowed thereafter.

3. Portions of this document are in print, the remainder is in manuscript, in particular the last paragraph from the words "Be it mentioned" to "allowed thereafter." The Petitioner whose signature if bears is the President of what is known as the Salisi Nispatti Bichar Mandali at Manikganj, and the charge is that by causing it to be served upon the complainant he committed the offence of which he was convicted.

4. Two points have been argued upon the hearing of the Rule. The first is that there is no evidence to support the findings of the lower Courts that the last paragraph in manuscript was there when the Petitioner signed the notice as to which I am not prepared to hold that there is no evidence to support the inference which the lower Courts have drawn in this respect.

5. The other point which is more substantial is that this notice cannot constitute the offence charged.

6. Excluding immaterial portions of the section, criminal intimidation is defined as follows :-Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do.... as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat commits criminal intimidation.

7. That the notice in question conforms in many respects to the forms, used by Courts established by law does not admit' of dispute. Expressions used are similar, the word "suit" is employed to specify the proceedings before this Tribunal which was self-constituted and had no legal sanction, and the complainant is required to put in an answer which he was not legally bound to do