Criminal intimidation prosecution under Sections 506/34 IPC fails absent allegations of a specific threat of injury.

The opposite party No. 2, Diya Chhetri, alleged that petitioner No. 1, Nitesh Sony, became acquainted with her through Instagram, performed marriage rituals with her on 2 February 2023, and thereafter maintained a physical relationship with her.

She later discovered that Nitesh was a minor at the time and requested him to execute an agreement to marry her upon attaining the marriageable age.

After a legal notice issued on 11 January 2024 allegedly went unanswered, she claimed that the petitioners threatened her with dire consequences.

Pursuant to the Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) CrPC, Basistha P.S. Case No. 306/2024 was registered under Sections 120-B/493/354-B/506/507 IPC.

Following investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 294/506/34 IPC, and PRC Case No. 2833/2024 was registered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro).

The petitioners challenged the order dated 27 October 2025 and sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the allegations did not disclose criminal intimidation or common intention.

Whether the allegations in the complaint, the Section 164 CrPC statement, and the charge-sheet disclosed the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Sections 503/506 IPC against the petitioners.

Whether Section 34 IPC was attracted in the absence of any underlying criminal act committed by the petitioners in furtherance of a common intention.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash PRC Case No. 2833/2024 as an abuse of the process of court.

The Court applied Section 503 IPC, which defines criminal intimidation as threatening a person with injury to body, reputation, or property, with the requisite intention to cause alarm or compel the person to act or omit an act; Section 506 IPC prescribes its punishment.

Section 34 IPC requires a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

Exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, the Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the categories permitting quashing where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

The Court also referred to Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, which permits quashing where unimpeachable material establishes that the accusations cannot legally be sustained and continuation of the trial would serve no purpose.

The Court found that the complaint and the materials collected during investigation described a relationship between petitioner No. 1 and the complainant, a purported marriage ceremony, physical relations, the subsequent breakdown of the relationship, and the refusal of the petitioners to acknowledge that relationship.

However, they did not specify any threat of injury to the complainant’s person, reputation, or property, nor any threat intended to cause alarm or compel her to perform or omit a legally relevant act.

The physical relationship was treated as apparently consensual and was not shown to have resulted from intimidation by the petitioners.

Since no offence of criminal intimidation was prima facie disclosed, there was no substantive criminal act to which Section 34 could attach.

Applying the Bhajan Lal principles, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.

It accordingly set aside the order dated 27 October 2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), and quashed the entire proceeding in PRC Case No. 2833/2024.

The criminal petition was allowed and disposed of.