Abusing Someone Does Not Amount to Criminal Intimidation Unless It Creates Alarm or Fear: Bombay High Court Clears Conviction Under Section 506 IPC

“The Word ‘Bhadkhau’ Cannot Be Construed as Criminal Intimidation in Absence of Intent to Threaten or Alarm” - In a detailed and legally nuanced judgment, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 6 May 2025 set aside the conviction of accused Maksud under Section 506 Part II IPC, clarifying that abusive language or quarrelling without any threatening intent or effect does not constitute criminal intimidation. The Court held that the mere use of derogatory words like “Bhadkhau” does not bring the offence within the ambit of criminal intimidation unless it is shown that the statement was made with intent to cause alarm and compel a person to act against their will.

The division bench comprising Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice M. W. Chandwani emphasized: “Utterance of the word ‘Bhadkhau’ by Maksud by no stretch of imagination is threatening so as to bring him under the gamut of criminal intimidation… that too punishable under Part II of Section 506 of IPC.”

“Section 503 IPC Requires Intent to Cause Alarm—Abuse Alone Is Not Enough”

The High Court overturned the Trial Court’s finding, holding that the requirements of Section 503 IPC, which defines criminal intimidation, were not satisfied. It reiterated that:

“There is nothing on record to show that Maksud threatened the prosecutrix and Dinesh with intent to cause alarm or that they were compelled to do or omit any act in consequence.”

The Court clarified that even offensive or indecent language used during a quarrel does not constitute a criminal offence under Section 506 unless accompanied by an actual threat intended to instil fear or coerce conduct.

“Mere abuse or altercation, however uncivil, does not attract criminal intimidation unless it carries a tangible threat or warning.”

Accordingly, the conviction under Section 506 Part II IPC was quashed.

“Lack of Section 65B Certificate Not Fatal Where Electronic Evidence Is Authenticated Independently”

Another key issue addressed in the judgment was the admissibility of electronic evidence. The case involved video recordings allegedly showing the prosecutrix in a compromising position, recovered from a Nokia mobile phone. No Section 65B certificate was furnished for the CD submitted to court.

The Court referred to the authoritative judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Gorantyal and held: “Though Section 65B(4) is mandatory, if the device is unavailable or in the hands of the accused, and the contents can be otherwise proven, the electronic record may still be admissible.”

Here, since the hash value of the CD matched the original mobile data, and the CD was corroborated by witness testimony and technical verification, the Court held: “Non-production of the certificate under Section 65B is not fatal in the facts of the present case.”

The video evidence, therefore, remained part of the evidentiary record.

“Section 326 IPC Not Attracted Where Injuries Are Simple—Possibility of Complications Is Not Enough”

Addressing another legal misapplication by the trial court, the High Court found that the injuries suffered by two victims—Rakesh and Dinesh—did not meet the threshold of “grievous hurt” under Section 320 IPC, and hence conviction under Section 326 IPC was unsustainable.

The Court explained: “Injuries must themselves be of the nature that endanger life or cause permanent disfiguration—speculative future complications are irrelevant.”

Thus, the conviction under Section 326 IPC was modified to one under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons.

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Maksud Sheikh Gaffur Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra exemplifies a rigorous application of legal principles, especially on:

• The narrow scope of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC;

• The evolving jurisprudence around electronic evidence and Section 65B compliance;

• The precise statutory test for grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC.

In doing so, the Court sent a clear message:

“The law must distinguish between criminal intimidation and uncivil speech—offensiveness without intent to alarm does not suffice.”

Date of Decision: 6 May 2025