BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1960 SC 154
Bailable (basic); Non-Bailable (aggravated)Cognizable: Non-Cognizable (basic); Cognizable (aggravated)Magistrate First Class / Court of Session
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 503/506 to BNS 357.
2
Threats via electronic communication (WhatsApp, email, social media) fully covered.
3
Two-tier punishment — basic threat (2 years) and aggravated threat of death/grievous hurt (7 years) — preserved.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, 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, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Legal Commentary
Section 357 criminalises threatening — using the prospect of harm to coerce a person's behaviour. Unlike extortion (where property is demanded), criminal intimidation is about compelling someone to do or not do something through fear. The provision is broad: threats to a person's body, reputation, or property are all covered, as are threats directed not at the victim personally but at someone they care about — 'harm your child if you don't withdraw the case.' The intent requirement has two branches: intent to cause alarm (making the victim fear the threat), and intent to coerce (making the victim act or abstain to avoid the threat). A threat must be communicated — it must reach the target. The aggravated form (up to 7 years) applies to threats of death, grievous hurt, or destruction of property. In practice, Section 357 is frequently invoked in witness intimidation, domestic abuse where one partner threatens another, business disputes where threats are used to force settlements, and online harassment. The digital dimension — threats sent via WhatsApp, email, or social media — is fully covered.
Landmark Precedents
Romesh Chandra Arora v. State (1960)
RELEVANCE
Established that criminal intimidation requires communication of the threat to the victim and intent to cause alarm or coercion — a threat kept private in the accused's mind is not the offence.
Case Simulations
"A witness who receives a message saying 'withdraw your statement or your child will be harmed' — criminal intimidation under BNS 357."
"A person who sends their business rival an email threatening to destroy their reputation unless they withdraw a lawsuit — criminal intimidation."
"An estranged spouse who tells the other 'if you don't drop the divorce petition I will kill you' — aggravated criminal intimidation (up to 7 years)."
"A political party worker who threatens a voter not to vote for a particular candidate — criminal intimidation."
Expert Insights
Yes. A threat communicated via WhatsApp, email, or any electronic means that creates alarm or coerces the recipient satisfies all elements of BNS 357. The medium of communication does not affect criminal liability.
Courts assess whether the threat would cause alarm to a reasonable person in the victim's position — not whether the accused could actually execute it. Even an impossible threat can constitute criminal intimidation if it causes actual alarm.