Mere Threats Don't Constitute Criminal Intimidation Without Intent To Cause Alarm: Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR
The Gujarat High Court has held that merely threatening without an intention to cause alarm to the complainant would not constitute offence of criminal intimidation. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 225]
In doing so the court held that to invoke this offence the complainant must establish that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to him.
The petitioners had sought quashing of an FIR under IPC Sections 409(Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 504(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506(2) (criminal intimidation) read with 114(Abettor present when offence is committed).
It was alleged that the complainant had rented his shop to one Harshadkumar Prabhudas for carrying Optical business. A rent note was executed and the business in the name of Diamond Optical shop was operated by Harshadkumar. When Harshadbhai was not found, the complainant went to the shop and found one Jagdish sitting there. When the complainant asked him about the whereabouts of Harshad, the latter stated that his brother-in-law Arvind had possession of the shop and started using abusive words.
The complainant thereafter alleged that on 10.03.2016 one Bharat Pala came to the complainant's office informed that the shop was taken over from Harshadbhai by Bharatbhai and Arvindbhai and requested the complainant to transfer the rent note in their favour, failing which, he threatened the complainant with serious consequences. After a day or two, Afzalbhai informed the complainant that the key of the shop and the possession is with him, and the complainant was threatened not to make any inquiry about the shop.
Justice PM Raval in his order said:
"before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, the complainant must establish that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant and mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant but with a view to see that he does not come to his office or place for inquiring would not amount to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. In the entire FIR, there is no whisper of any allegation by the complainant that the threats which were administered actually caused any alarm to the first informant and that he felt actually threatened...Be that as it may, the fact remains that the entire FIR is silent with regards to the allegations of threats which were administered and actually causing any alarm to the first informant and that he actually well threatened is conspicuously missing, under the circumstances, no case is made out"
The court thus quashed the FIR finding that none of the allegations were proved.
Case title: HARSHADBHAI PRABHUDAS SHETH & ANR. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 7935 of 2016
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 225
Appearance:
MR MAHESH POOJARA FOR MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS BHAVIKA H KOTECHA(2942) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1