Section 506 IPC vs Section 351 BNS — Criminal Intimidation (IPC 503, 506, 507)

In India, Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced criminal intimidation under Sections 503, 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. The punishments are unchanged: up to two years, or seven for threats of death or grievous hurt. The definition now covers threats made "by any means".

At a glance

The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 506 and 507 IPC the same way: non-cognizable and bailable throughout, triable by any Magistrate for the first part of Section 506 and by a Magistrate of the first class for its second part and for Section 507.

The neighbours in the same Chapter moved too: intentional insult to provoke breach of the peace (Section 504 IPC) is now Section 352 BNS; statements conducing to public mischief (Section 505 IPC) are Section 353; and inducing belief in Divine displeasure (Section 508 IPC) is Section 354.

What changed

• Modified — Section 351(1) (IPC 503): "Whoever threatens another with any injury" becomes "Whoever threatens another by any means, with any injury". The rest of the definition, the Explanation (a threat to injure the reputation of a deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested) and the Illustration (A threatens to burn B's house to stop B prosecuting a civil suit) are carried over.
• Minor edit — Section 351(2) (IPC 506, first part): the same punishment, up to two years, or fine, or both, now as a separate sub-section.
• Minor edit — Section 351(3) (IPC 506, second part): Section 506 ran on "and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt"; Section 351(3) restates it as "Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by threatening to cause death or grievous hurt". The listed harms and the punishment (up to seven years, or fine, or both) are the same. The IPC marginal sub-heading "If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc." is dropped.
• Minor edit — Section 351(4) (IPC 507): the offence and the extra two years are the same. Section 507 added the term to "the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section" (Section 506); Section 351(4) adds it to "the punishment provided for the offence under sub-section (1)".
• Unchanged — classification and compounding: see "What this means in practice".

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 503 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

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.

Extract, Section 351 BNS, sub-sections (1), opening words, and (4):

(1) Whoever threatens another by any means, 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, ...

(4) Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence under sub-section (1).

How it works — the ingredients

Section 351(1) has two parts: the threat, and the intent behind it.

1. A threat of injury — to the person threatened, in his "person, reputation or property", or to the "person or reputation" of someone in whom he is interested. The Explanation extends this to a threat to injure the reputation of a deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested. "By any means" now qualifies how the threat is made.

2. One of three intents:

   • to cause alarm to that person; or
   • to cause that person to do an act he is not legally bound to do; or
   • to cause him to omit an act he is legally entitled to do,

   in each of the last two cases "as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat".

The Illustration shows the second intent: A threatens to burn B's house to make B stop prosecuting a civil suit. A civil suit is something B is legally entitled to pursue, so A is guilty.

The aggravated form (351(3)) depends on what is threatened: death or grievous hurt; destruction of any property by fire; an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to seven years; or imputing unchastity to a woman.

Anonymity (351(4)) is an addition, not a separate threat. The intimidation must first be made out; the extra term applies where the threat is anonymous or the maker has concealed his name or abode.

Neighbouring offences:

• Where the threat is used to make a person deliver property, the charge is likely extortion under Section 308 BNS, which turns on putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing delivery.
• Where the complaint is of abuse or insult, the relevant section is Section 352 BNS, which needs an intentional insult, with intent or knowledge that the provocation is likely to cause a breach of the public peace or another offence.

What this means in practice

For the complainant

• Every form of criminal intimidation is non-cognizable. Under Section 174(1) BNSS the officer in charge records the substance of the information and refers the informant to the Magistrate; under Section 174(2) the police cannot investigate without a Magistrate's order. If the same incident discloses a cognizable offence (for example hurt by a dangerous weapon under Section 118(1) BNS), Section 174(4) treats the whole case as cognizable.
• The complaint should state the words of the threat, who made it, when, and the injury threatened. The Supreme Court judgments below turn on complaints that said only that the victim was "abused" or "threatened".
• Under Section 359(1) BNSS, the person intimidated may compound Sections 351(2) and 351(3) without the court's permission. Section 320(1) CrPC listed Section 506 IPC the same way. Section 351(4) is not in either table of Section 359, and Section 359(9) bars compounding except as the section provides.

For the accused and defence advocate

• All forms are bailable in the BNSS First Schedule, so under Section 478(1) BNSS an accused who is prepared to give bail is to be released on bail.
• The ingredients are tested on the face of the complaint at the stages of summons, discharge and quashing. Where the complaint does not state a threat of injury with the required intent, the Supreme Court has discharged the accused or quashed the proceedings (see below).

For the investigating officer

• Section 351(3) turns on what was threatened, so the statement recorded should capture the exact words. The difference between Section 351(2) and 351(3) also decides whether any Magistrate or only a Magistrate of the first class can try the case.
• For threats sent by message or post, the record should show whether the sender concealed his identity. Section 351(4) applies only to an anonymous communication or where precautions were taken to conceal the name or abode.

A point of drafting: Section 351(4) adds its two years to "the punishment provided for the offence under sub-section (1)". Sub-section (1) defines the offence and contains no punishment; the punishments are in sub-sections (2) and (3). On a reading of the text, the additional term is added to whichever of those applies, as Section 507 IPC added it to Section 506. No judgment construing this cross-reference was read for this page.

Judgments that still matter

Manik Taneja & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., [2015] 1 S.C.R. 156 (2015 INSC 55) — 20 January 2015. V. Gopala Gowda and R. Banumathi JJ. quashed an FIR under Sections 353 and 506 IPC over comments posted on a traffic police Facebook page complaining about an inspector's conduct. The Court held that it is the intention of the accused that decides whether words amount to criminal intimidation: "Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section" (para 15). It found no intention to cause alarm and quashed the FIR (paras 16-17). Section 351(1) BNS repeats the intent requirement word for word.

Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1 (2019 INSC 583) — 26 April 2019. Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph JJ. set aside the rejection of a discharge application in a complaint case under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The allegation was that the accused came to the complainant's house with others, one holding a revolver, abused him and was about to assault him. The Court held that "the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant". It set out three matters the prosecution must prove: a threat, consisting of injury to person, reputation or property, made with the required intent (para 27). The accused was discharged (paras 28-29).

Mohammad Wajid & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2023] 11 S.C.R. 313 (2023 INSC 683) — 8 August 2023. B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala JJ. listed the essentials of Section 503 IPC (para 24). They held: "Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant" (para 27). Although a prima facie case under Section 506 "may probably" have been disclosed (para 28), the Court quashed the FIR. It held that where proceedings are said to be vexatious, the court should look at the attending circumstances, not only the averments in the FIR (para 30; paras 35-36).

Ishwar Chand Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2026 INSC 587 — 29 May 2026. B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan JJ. applied Section 351 BNS directly in quashing a complaint that included that charge. The Court held that "merely stating that the victim was abused is not sufficient". The prosecution had to produce material that the accused "specifically threatened the victim" with injury to person, reputation or property, with the intent the section requires (para 7.9). The complaint did not say what the threat was, and the proceedings were quashed (para 11).

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS keeps alive any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that provision, a threat made before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 503, 506 and 507 IPC. Proceedings pending on that date continue under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law in force at the time of the offence; the punishments in Section 351 are the same as in Sections 506 and 507, so, on a reading of that Article, no question of a heavier penalty arises. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 506 IPC? Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Sections 503, 506 and 507 IPC. The punishment in the first part of Section 506 IPC is now Section 351(2), up to two years, or fine, or both; the aggravated part (threat to cause death, grievous hurt and the other listed harms) is Section 351(3), up to seven years, or fine, or both.

What must be proved for criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS? Section 351(1) requires a threat to another of injury to that person's person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of someone in whom he is interested. The threat must be made with intent to cause alarm, or to make the person do something he is not legally bound to do, or omit something he is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the threat.

Is criminal intimidation cognizable and bailable under the BNSS? Criminal intimidation is non-cognizable and bailable in every form. The BNSS First Schedule lists Section 351(2) as triable by any Magistrate, and Sections 351(3) and 351(4) as triable by a Magistrate of the first class. The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 506 and 507 IPC the same way.

Can a criminal intimidation case be compromised? Yes, under Section 359(1) BNSS, the person intimidated may compound offences under Sections 351(2) and 351(3) BNS without the court's permission, as Section 320(1) CrPC allowed for Section 506 IPC. Section 351(4) is not listed, and Section 359(9) bars compounding except as the section provides.

Is abusing someone criminal intimidation? Not by itself. In Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh ([2019] 8 S.C.R. 1, paras 26-28) the Supreme Court discharged an accused where the only allegation was abuse, and in Ishwar Chand Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026 INSC 587, para 7.9) it held under Section 351 BNS that merely stating the victim was abused is not sufficient. The complaint must state the threat of injury and the intent.

What is the punishment for an anonymous threat under the BNS? Section 351(4) BNS punishes criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or after taking precautions to conceal the name or abode of the person making the threat, with imprisonment of up to two years, "in addition to the punishment provided for the offence under sub-section (1)". Section 507 IPC added the same two years to the punishment under Section 506.

Which law applies to a threat made before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves penalties incurred under the IPC and lets proceedings continue as if the IPC had not been repealed, so on a reading of that text a threat made before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 503, 506 and 507 IPC. The punishments are the same under both Codes, so, on a reading of Article 20(1) of the Constitution, no question of a heavier penalty arises.

Related

• Extortion and threats — BNS 308 and 351 vs IPC 383-389, 503-507
• Extortion: IPC 383-389 vs BNS 308
• Defamation: IPC 499-502 vs BNS 356
• Fake news and false statements — BNS 353 vs IPC 505
• Compromise in a criminal case — compounding under BNSS 359
• IPC to BNS — master table
• Section 505 IPC vs Section 353 BNS — Statements Conducing to Public Mischief
• Sections 349–358 IPC vs Sections 128–136 BNS — Assault and Criminal Force

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 308(1), 351, 352, 353 and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 503 to 507, with footnotes.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 174, 359 and 531, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 351(2) to 351(4) and 352 BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 320 and the First Schedule entries for Sections 504 to 507 IPC.
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments read in full text: Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015_1_156_164_EN.md); Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019_8_1_18_EN.md); Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023_11_313_347_EN.md); Ishwar Chand Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Diary_62571-2025_Judgment.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.