Criminal intimidation

2025 PCrLJ 1267 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 154 & 173Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionPolice Rules, 1934, R. 24.7Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 506Criminal intimidationReport of Police OfficerCancellation of FIRDue processScope

Petitioner assailed order passed by Judicial Magistrate whereby he had cancelled the FIR on the recommendation of the police

Validity

In the present case, the alleged occurrence took place on 27.01.2025 and FIR was registered on 29.01.2025

Cancellation report was prepared on 04.02.2025 and forwarded by the prosecution branch on 06.02.2025 to the Trial Court

Said case was fixed before the Judicial Magistrate for hearing on 08.02.2025 and on the same date on the basis of non-appearance of the complainant the Trial Court agreed with the cancellation report and passed the impugned order

Furthermore, the summons issued to the complainant was not duly served, resulting in the complainant's absence before the Court, however, instead of affording the complainant an opportunity to appear, the Court proceeded to pass the impugned order

Said aspect of the matter raised the question as to what urgency existed in the matter that prompted the concerned SHO to file the cancellation report and led the Court to pass the impugned order in such a hasty manners

Story indicated that the due process was not adopted by the Investigating Agency as well as by the Trial Court

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly and impugned order passed by Judicial Magistrate was set-aside and matter was remanded to investigating agency of submission of fresh report under S.173, Cr.P.C.

2023 SCMR 734 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 503 & 506Criminal intimidationScope

Whenever an overt act materializes and ends into an overt act, the provision of section 506, P.P.C. would not be applicable and the only provision which will remain in the field is the overt act, which is committed in consequence of criminal intimidation.

2022 SCMR 1946 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 506(ii)Criminal intimidationScope

When in consequence of criminal intimidation an overt act materializes and ends into an overt act, the provision of section 506(ii), P.P.C. would not be applicable and the only provision which will remain in the field is the overt act.

2022 PCrLJ 1254 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 503 & 506Criminal intimidationScope

Danger simpliciter does not establish criminal intimidation except if it is proposed to cause or causes an individual or any one in whom he is intrigued to do any demonstration which he lawfully will undoubtedly do, or to discard to do any demonstration which that individual is legitimately qualified for doing, as the method for keeping away from execution of such danger.

2022 YLRN 199 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 506Criminal intimidationScope

Prosecution is required to prove the ingredients in respect of an offence under S.506, P.P.C. that the accused threatened some persons with some injury; to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom the person is interested; that accused did so with intent to cause harm to that person or cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do so as means of avoiding the execution of such threat

Intended threat was to cause death or grievous hurt or to cause destruction of the property by fire or to cause an offence punishable by death or imprisonment for life, etc.

2022 YLR 2053 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Ss. 337-A, 504 & 506ShajjahIntentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peaceCriminal intimidationAppreciation of evidenceScopeComplainant assailed the acquittal of accused persons by the Magistrate

Prosecution witnesses had not supported the prosecution version and it had failed to prove its version against the accused as the alleged eye-witnesses had resiled from their previous statements recorded before the police under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Judgment passed by Magistrate was well reasoned and correct appreciation of material available on file and further proceedings in the matter would be a futile exercise and wastage of precious time of the Court

Complainant had failed to point out any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Magistrate warranting interference of the Chief Court

Appeal was dismissed.

2020 YLRN 108 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.506Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417Criminal intimidationAppreciation of evidenceAppeal against acquittalBenefit of doubtScopeStock witnessRelianceScopeAppellant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby respondents were acquittedFirst Information Report was lodged with a delay of about 2 months and 12 days without any plausible explanationProsecution witnesses admitted that they were witnesses of the complainant in 9/10 other criminal casesWitnesses appeared to be stock witnesses of the complainant, who could hardly be relied uponTrial court had rightly recorded the acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 PCrLJ 1622 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 506Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionQuashing of FIRCriminal intimidationVague allegationsNon-mentioning of exact timeEffect

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR (first information report) wherein complainant had levelled the allegation that petitioner and his co-accused extended threats of life

Validity

No specific time of threats of life allegedly extended by the petitioner and his co-accused had been mentioned in the FIR and a vague allegation by only mentioning the date in that respect had been levelled therein

No person could be prosecuted and convicted on the basis of vague and non-specific allegations

Trial Court would not be able to frame a specific charge in that respect against the petitioner and co-accused

First Information Report was quashed.

2017 YLRN 262 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 499, 500 & 504/34DefamationCriminal intimidationQuashing of FIRScopeComplainant alleged the accused of defamation and criminal intimidation

Accused contended that the incident fell within the jurisdiction of civil court and complainant with mala fide intent converted the civil dispute into criminal proceedings

During investigation accused were found involved in commission of offence

Apparently there was sufficient material against the accused to substantiate the commission of offence and it was not possible for High Court to hold that there was no probability of the conviction of the accused in the case because deeper appreciation of evidence was the function of Trial Court and after taking cognizance of a case by the Trial Court, FIR could not be quashed fate of the proceedings against was to be decided by the Trial Court

Accused did not approach the Trial Court under S.249-A Cr.P.C. but approached High Court directly under S.561-A Cr.P.C, proceedings under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. could not be used to override express provisions of law

Jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. was an extraordinary one and should be used only in exceptional cases but not in normal one

Application was dismissed and accused was at liberty to avail a remedy provided under S.249-A Cr.P.C.

2016 PCrLJN 114 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 503 & 506Quashing of proceedings, application forCriminal intimidation

Respondent/ complainant, who was Executive Director of a Sugar Mill, lodged complaint that applicant, who was also one of the Directors of same Mill, and also Chief Executive of another company, in the meeting of Board of Directors of the Mill, had threatened the respondent to kill him and his family

After investigation and recording statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., of the participants of the meetings of the Board of Directors, prosecution had submitted charge sheet against the applicant in the court of Magistrate, showing the name of applicant in column No.2 as absconder

Applicant had filed application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings, against him

Facts which had negated the claim of the complainant that he and his family were under threat of the death by the applicant were; that the conduct of applicant/accused did not show that at any point of time he had the will or wish to take the law in his hands; that alleged incident took place within 15 minutes of the start of the meeting of the Board of Directors, and meeting did not end in fiasco

Requirements of the S.503, P.P.C., therefore, were missing in the case

Complainant did exactly what he wanted to do, and did nothing which he was not legally supposed to do; that minutes of the meeting were silent about any untoward incident during the meeting

Contents of FIR and the statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., of the prosecution witnesses stood contradicted by the record of the minutes of the meeting, during which alleged threats were issued by applicant/accused; that very fact that applicant, after the meeting, instead of committing any threatened criminal offence, preferred to file a civil suit, which had further confirmed that applicant had no will or wish and intention of causing any injury or harm to the complainant and his family; that there was a delay of eight days in lodging FIR; that no record of any attempt to arrest applicant/accused had been disclosed by the prosecution; that applicant/accused having not used any weapon in the course of alleged intimidation, there was no justification to register case under S. 506, P.P.C.; that Judicial Magistrate, also acted mechanically by accepting the challan, and did not exercise his authority in terms of S. 173, Cr.P.C.

Contents of FIR and statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under S.506, P.P.C., were not enough to constitute a cognizable offence; that Magistrate, not only failed to exercise his jurisdiction with conscious mind under S.173, Cr.P.C., but also started proceedings in an unprecedented haste

Cognizable offence under S.506, P.P.C., was not made out for trial

Trial of a case on the facts of FIR lodged by respondent/complainant, was waste of precious time of court, besides uncalled for harassment to the applicant

Magistrate, did not apply his judicial mind to the provisions of S.173, Cr.P.C., in accepting the challan of case, which on the face of it was lacking in the material to support the prosecution story

Applicant was justified in approaching High Court

Since no cognizable offence had been made out against the applicant, prosecution of the case before Judicial Magistrate, arising out of FIR, was sheer abuse of process of the court

FIR and proceedings of the case, stood quashed in circumstances.

2015 YLR 2386 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 506Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417Criminal intimidationAppeal against acquittalReappraisal of evidence

Impugned judgment of acquittal, appeared to be without any infirmity, gross irregularity nor suffering from any illegality

Trial Court had thoroughly examined the deposition of all three witnesses and reached to the conclusion that there was counter cases in-between the parties over ownership of a house and that there was delay of four days in lodging the FIR, which was not explained

No independent or private witness was produced to connect accused with the crime

Appeal against acquittal, had distinctive features and the approach to deal with the appeal against conviction was distinguishable from the appeal against acquittal, because presumption of double innocence was attached in the latter case

Order of acquittal could only be interfered with, if it was found on its face to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature, or based on misreading, non-reading of evidence, or was artificial, arbitrary and led to gross-miscarriage of justice

Mere disregard of technicalities in a criminal trial without resulting injustice was not enough for interference

Order/judgment of acquittal would give rise to strong presumption of innocence, rather double presumption of innocence was attached to such an order

Acquittal would be unquestionable when it could not be said that acquittal was either perverse, or that acquittal judgment was improper or incorrect

Whenever there was doubt about guilt of accused, its benefit must go to him, and court would never come to the rescue of prosecution, to fill-up the lacuna appearing in evidence of prosecution case, as it would be against established principles of dispensation of criminal justice

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2014 YLR 2703 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.506-B & 34Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)Criminal intimidationCommon intentionAppeal against acquittalAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtContradictions were noticed in the statements of the prosecution witnessesComplainant had not stated in the F.I.R. that accused kept pistol on her head, but alleged the same in her deposition

F.I.R., in the case was lodged after 23 days of the alleged incident, for which no plausible explanation had been furnished

Husband of the complainant, in his deposition had not said that accused persons attacked upon him; and that his wife/complainant was also beaten by female accused; and that accused kept pistol on the head of the complainant as alleged by her in her statement

In view of said glaring contradictions, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, serious doubts had developed in the prosecution case

Accused was entitled to be extended benefit of doubt as a matter of right, as there were many circumstances which had created doubt in the prosecution case

Accused could not be deprived of benefit of doubt, merely because there was only one circumstance which created doubt in the prosecution story.

2014 PLD 164 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6 & 7Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.503 & 506Act of terrorismScopeCriminal intimidationIngredientsAppreciation of evidence

"Action" as defined in subsection (2) of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if qualified the condition of involvement of the use of fire-arms, explosive, or any other weapon, would fall within meanings of "terrorism"

In the present case, it was not alleged that any of the person, forming mob, was armed with any weapon; alleged resistance, offered by the mob, therefore, could not be an act of 'terrorism'

Simple threats, were not sufficient to constitute criminal intimidation, within the scope of S.503, P.P.C., unless it was caused to a person to do an act, who was not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act, which that person was legally bound to do

Ingredients of criminal intimidation, being missing in the matter, Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not applicable in the matter.