The section that replaced IPC 503, 506 and 507 on 1 July 2024. Which of its four sub-sections applies to you and why that changes everything, why abusive language is not a threat, why so many of these cases are quashed, and the remedy that works faster than a criminal complaint.
Section 351 of the BNS is criminal intimidation — threatening a person with injury to their person, reputation or property, with intent to cause alarm, or to make them do something they are not legally bound to do, or stop them doing something they are legally entitled to do. It replaced Sections 503, 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has four sub-sections and they are very different. 351(1) defines the offence. 351(2) is the ordinary form — up to two years. 351(3) is the aggravated form — a threat of death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, a very serious offence, or an imputation of unchastity to a woman — up to seven years. 351(4) covers an anonymous threat and adds up to two years on top.
Intent is the whole case. The Supreme Court has held that the mere expression of words, without any intention to cause alarm, is not enough — and that abusing someone does not by itself satisfy the section.
There is a faster remedy than a criminal complaint, and almost no page mentions it: an Executive Magistrate can require a person who threatens the peace to give security, with sureties. For persistent threats from a neighbour or a relative, that often works better than a case that will run for years.
Three sections of the Indian Penal Code became one section with four sub-sections. The substance was carried over.
| What it covers | Old law | New law | Punishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of criminal intimidation | Section 503 IPC | 351(1) BNS | Definitional |
| The ordinary offence | Section 506 IPC, first part | 351(2) BNS | Up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| The aggravated offence | Section 506 IPC, second part | 351(3) BNS | Up to 7 years, or fine, or both |
| Threat by anonymous communication | Section 507 IPC | 351(4) BNS | Up to 2 years, in addition to the punishment for the offence itself |
| Intentional insult to provoke a breach of the peace | Section 504 IPC | 352 BNS | Up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| Statements conducing to public mischief | Section 505 IPC | 353 BNS | Up to 3 years — higher in a place of worship |
Which sub-section is alleged changes the sentence, the seriousness with which the case is treated, and whether the complaint is even in time. It is the first thing to establish.
| Sub-section | What it is | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| 351(1) | The definition. Threatening another, by any means, with injury to person, reputation or property — theirs, or of anyone in whom they are interested — with intent to cause alarm, or to compel them to do what they are not legally bound to do, or to omit what they are legally entitled to do. An Explanation extends it to a threat to injure the reputation of a deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested | Nobody is charged under this sub-section alone; it defines the offence |
| 351(2) | The ordinary offence. Most cases are here | Up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| 351(3) | The aggravated offence — a threat to cause death or grievous hurt; to destroy property by fire; to cause an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of seven years or more; or to impute unchastity to a woman | Up to 7 years, or fine, or both |
| 351(4) | The threat made anonymously, or by taking precautions to conceal the name or place of abode of the person threatening | Up to 2 years, in addition to the punishment for the offence under the earlier sub-sections |
While checking this page we found published summaries that set the section out as having three sub-sections, putting the seven-year aggravated form at "351(2)" and the anonymous limb at "351(3)". That numbering is wrong; it collapses the definition and the ordinary punishment into a single sub-section.
Stripped down, the offence has three parts:
The first and third are usually easy. The second is where these cases live and die.
"Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section."
That single sentence explains why so many criminal intimidation cases are quashed. A complaint that says "he threatened me" without saying what was said, and without anything showing that it was said in order to alarm or to force a course of conduct, does not disclose the offence — however genuine the underlying grievance.
The commonest complaint under this section is really a complaint about being abused, and the Supreme Court has addressed it directly.
The Court held that the "mere fact that the accused abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 506."
Foul language, insults and shouting are not threats. They may amount to a different offence — intentional insult given with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, now Section 352 — but that is a separate section with its own ingredients, and it is not criminal intimidation.
A recurring question in business and matrimonial disputes: the other side says they will file a case, go to the police, complain to the employer, report to the tax authorities. Is that criminal intimidation?
Ordinarily no. The section is aimed at compelling somebody to do what they are not legally bound to do. Telling a person you will exercise a legal right you actually have is not that. Courts have consistently been unwilling to criminalise the statement of an intention to litigate.
The section says "by any means", so the medium is irrelevant in principle. Two practical points nevertheless matter a great deal.
First, the ingredients still have to be there. In 2015 the Supreme Court quashed proceedings arising out of comments posted online, holding that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences was satisfied and observing that the posts may have been made in the bona fide belief that they were within permissible limits. Strong words online are not automatically a criminal threat.
Second, a section police sometimes still cite does not exist. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act — the provision about offensive messages — was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2015. It is not law, and a case cannot rest on it. Other provisions of that Act, dealing with identity theft and impersonation using a computer resource, do survive and may apply where the threat involves a fake identity.
Most pages will tell you flatly whether this offence is cognizable, bailable and compoundable. We are going to be more careful, because the published sources contradict each other and we could not read the official Schedule.
What can be said with confidence:
On limitation, the position follows from the punishment. The limitation rules apply to offences punishable with up to three years, so the two-year form is subject to a three-year limit; the seven-year form is not. Do not sit on a threat for years.
| Step | What happens |
|---|---|
| 1 | Give a written complaint at the police station, with the words used, the dates and the witnesses. Get a receipt or a diary entry number |
| 2 | Where the offence is non-cognizable, the police record the information and refer you to the Magistrate — they cannot investigate without the Magistrate's order |
| 3 | Where a cognizable offence is disclosed — which is often the case because criminal intimidation usually comes bundled with something else — an FIR should be registered |
| 4 | If registration is refused where it should have happened: a written complaint by post to the DCP, then an application to the Magistrate on affidavit |
| 5 | Alternatively, a private complaint before the Magistrate — noting the new requirement that the accused be heard before cognizance is taken |
| Court complex | Broadly serves |
|---|---|
| Tis Hazari | Central and West Delhi |
| Rohini | North and North-West Delhi |
| Karkardooma | East, North-East and Shahdara |
| Saket | South and South-East Delhi |
| Dwarka | South-West Delhi |
| Patiala House | New Delhi district |
Delhi has more police districts than judicial districts and the boundaries do not map neatly. Confirm the current allocation from the Delhi District Courts website or the filing counter before you travel.
Where the threat came online or by phone from an unknown number, report it on the national cyber-crime reporting portal and on the 1930 helpline as well — that route is built for tracing, which a local police station is not.
This is the most useful section on this page for anybody dealing with a persistent threat rather than a single incident, and we could not find it on a single competing page.
The BNSS gives an Executive Magistrate — not a criminal court — the power to require a person to give security for keeping the peace, and separately to require security for good behaviour from persons whose conduct warrants it. The person is called upon to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for a period.
| Criminal complaint under Section 351 | Security proceedings | |
|---|---|---|
| Before whom | Magistrate, as a criminal case | Executive Magistrate — in Delhi, the SDM |
| What you get | A conviction, eventually | A bond with sureties binding the person to keep the peace |
| Speed | Years | Comparatively quick — it is preventive, not punitive |
| What it needs | Proof of the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt | Satisfaction that there is sufficient ground for proceeding |
| If it is broken | — | The bond is forfeited, and the person may be committed to prison |
Where the threats are at home, from a husband or his family, there is a better route still: the Domestic Violence Act treats threats as verbal and emotional abuse and lets a Magistrate pass a protection order — and breaching that order is itself a cognizable, non-bailable offence. For a woman, that is usually faster and more effective than a complaint under this section.
| Section | What it covers | How it differs |
|---|---|---|
| 352 BNS (old 504) | Intentional insult given with intent to provoke a breach of the peace | This is the abuse section. No threat is needed — the question is whether the insult was likely to provoke a breach of the peace |
| 353 BNS (old 505) | Statements conducing to public mischief — rumours and false statements likely to cause fear or ill-will | Directed at the public, not at one person |
| Extortion (old 383/384) | Putting a person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly inducing them to deliver property | Threat plus a demand and a delivery. Where money changed hands because of the threat, this is the offence — not criminal intimidation |
| Defamation (old 499/500) | Harming reputation by publication | A threat to injure reputation is intimidation; actually injuring it is defamation |
| 318 BNS and 316 BNS | Cheating and criminal breach of trust | Frequently charged alongside, where a money dispute has turned into threats |
| Offences relating to a woman's modesty | Assault or criminal force, sexual harassment, and words or gestures intended to insult modesty | Where the threat is directed at a woman, these usually carry more weight than Section 351 |
| Situation | What usually matters |
|---|---|
| Money recovery and lenders | Threats from a lender or recovery agent. Note that regulated lenders are separately bound by the Reserve Bank's rules on the conduct of recovery agents, including how and when a borrower may be contacted — a complaint to the lender and to the regulator often achieves more than a criminal complaint |
| Business and partnership disputes | Almost always accompanies a dispute about money. The other side will argue civil colour — see Section 528 BNSS |
| Property and landlord-tenant | Threats to dispossess. Security proceedings are often the practical answer |
| At home | The Domestic Violence Act route, above — a protection order does more than a complaint |
| Online and anonymous | The anonymous limb, the cyber-crime portal, and the evidence certificate |
| Witnesses in a pending case | Threats to a witness are taken seriously and may attract other provisions — tell the court and the investigating officer, in writing, at once |
This page explains the law in general terms. It cannot tell you what to do about your own facts — only an advocate who has read your papers can do that. You can look through the advocates associated with Legal Space Services who practise in criminal matters, see their enrolment details and areas of practice, and send a consultation request. Searching and sending a request are free.
Because the intent element is where these cases are decided, it is worth seeing the difference concretely. Both of the following describe the same incident.
| A complaint that goes nowhere | A complaint that discloses the offence |
|---|---|
| "On 12 August the accused came to my shop and threatened me and abused me in filthy language in front of everyone. He has been harassing me for a long time. I am in great fear. Action may kindly be taken." | "On 12 August at about 7.15 pm the accused came to my shop at [address] and said, in the presence of my employee [name] and the shopkeeper next door [name], that if I did not withdraw the complaint I had made to the RWA on 4 August, he would burn my shop down. He repeated it twice. I did not withdraw the complaint. Since that evening I have closed the shop by 6 pm and my wife now travels with me. On 14 August he called from [number] at 9.40 pm and repeated it." |
The second version does four things the first does not. It gives the words. It shows what he was trying to make the complainant do — withdraw a complaint he was not legally bound to withdraw. It names witnesses. And it shows alarm by describing what changed afterwards. It also, incidentally, pleads the aggravated form, because a threat to destroy property by fire is within Section 351(3).
| Stage | What happens | Where it is decided |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint | Written complaint at the police station, or a private complaint to the Magistrate where the offence is non-cognizable | Whether the complaint sets out the words and the intent — most cases are effectively decided here |
| Registration or referral | An FIR where a cognizable offence is disclosed; otherwise a referral to the Magistrate | Which sub-section, and what else is alleged alongside |
| Investigation or enquiry | Statements recorded; messages and call records collected | Whether the electronic evidence was preserved properly |
| Summons | The accused is summoned. Criminal intimidation rarely produces an arrest on its own | The accused's first response — replying in anger here damages the defence badly |
| Quashing or discharge | Where the ingredients are missing on the face of the complaint, a petition to the High Court, or a discharge application | The absence of intent, or the civil colour of the dispute |
| Trial | Evidence and cross-examination, largely on what was actually said | Witnesses. A complaint with no independent witness usually struggles |
Running alongside all of that, and much faster: the security proceedings described above, and — where the threats are at home — a protection order. It is worth deciding at the start which of these you actually need, because for most people the answer is that they want the threats to stop, not a conviction in 2030.
It is criminal intimidation — threatening someone with injury to their person, reputation or property in order to alarm them, or to make them do something they are not legally bound to do, or stop them doing something they are entitled to do. It replaced Sections 503, 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024.
Four. 351(1) defines the offence. 351(2) is the general punishment — up to two years. 351(3) is the aggravated form — up to seven years. 351(4) covers a threat made anonymously or by concealing identity, and adds up to two more years on top.
Both 351(2) and 351(3) — the old Section 506 had two parts and they have become two sub-sections. If someone tells you "351 carries seven years", ask which sub-section, because most cases are under 351(2), which carries two.
A threat to cause death or grievous hurt; to destroy property by fire; to cause an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment or with imprisonment for seven years or more; or to impute unchastity to a woman. Any of those takes it from two years to seven.
It deals with a threat made anonymously, or where the person conceals their name or address. The punishment is up to two years in addition to what is provided for the offence itself — so an anonymous threat is treated more seriously than the same threat made openly.
No, and this is the heart of the subject. The threat has to be made with a particular intent — to cause alarm, or to force the person to do or not do something. The Supreme Court has said that mere expression of words, without any intention to cause alarm, is not enough to bring the section into play.
Not by itself. In 2019 the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of the section. Abuse may amount to a different offence — intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of the peace — but abuse alone is not a threat.
The section is framed around the intent of the person making the threat rather than the effect on the person receiving it. In practice courts look at both, because what actually happened is the best evidence of what was intended. A complaint that does not say what was said, by whom, and why it alarmed you is a weak complaint.
Ordinarily not. Threatening to take a step you are legally entitled to take — filing a complaint, going to the police, suing — is not criminal intimidation, because the section is aimed at forcing someone to do what they are not legally bound to do. Where the threat of a case is used to extract money or property, that is a different offence altogether.
The medium does not matter — the section says "by any means". But the Supreme Court has quashed proceedings over online comments where the ingredients were not made out, noting the posts may have been made in the bona fide belief that they were within permissible limits. And the evidence has to be produced properly: see our page on Section 63 BSA.
It depends on the classification, and you should have this checked rather than assume. Under the old law the offence was generally non-cognizable and bailable, which means no FIR without a Magistrate's order — though several States had amended it to make it cognizable and non-bailable. We have not been able to verify the current classification for each sub-section from the official Schedule, and published sources contradict each other. Ask your advocate to check the First Schedule for the sub-section that applies to you.
If the offence is non-cognizable, the police record the information and refer you to the Magistrate; the police can investigate only on a Magistrate's order. The routes are a private complaint to the Magistrate, and — where the police simply refuse to act on something they should — a written complaint to the DCP followed by an application to the Magistrate.
Yes, and almost nobody mentions it. The BNSS allows an Executive Magistrate to require a person to give security for keeping the peace, and separately for good behaviour. It is not a punishment — it is a bond, with sureties, and consequences if it is broken. For a neighbour, a relative or a local troublemaker who keeps threatening, this is often faster and more effective than a criminal complaint that will run for years.
For the two-year form, yes — the limitation rules bite on offences punishable up to three years, so a complaint should be made within three years. The seven-year aggravated form is not subject to that limit. Do not sit on a threat for years on the assumption that it can be raised whenever you like.
Under the old law the offence was compoundable by the person threatened. Whether the same applies to each sub-section under the new compounding tables should be checked before an application is made. Where it is not compoundable, the route after a settlement is a quashing petition — see our page on Section 528 BNSS.
That there was no intent to cause alarm; that the words were spoken in the heat of a quarrel; that what was threatened was a lawful step; that the complaint does not say what you actually said; and that the whole matter is a civil dispute given a criminal colour. The last two are the most common and the most effective.
Then the first thing to look at is whether it attributes any particular words to any particular person. An omnibus allegation that "they all threatened us" without saying who said what is exactly the kind of complaint the Supreme Court has held does not disclose the offence.
That depends on the classification of the sub-section alleged and on what else has been charged — criminal intimidation is very often added to a case under another section. Our page on Section 482 BNSS sets out how that application works.
These are among the most frequently quashed proceedings, precisely because the intent element is so often missing on the face of the complaint. The petition goes to the High Court.
Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →
Tell us in one line what was said and by whom. We will tell you which practice area it falls under and point you to an advocate who works in it. The first conversation costs nothing.