Criminal Intimidation Online: Section 351 BNS and Defences
By Advocate Panchanand Shaw, Bar Council of West Bengal · Published 4 Nov 2026 · Cyber law
Criminal intimidation is a threat of injury to a person, reputation or property made to cause alarm or to force someone to act, and it is punished online under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The basic offence carries up to two years; a threat of death or grievous hurt carries up to seven. This guide explains the tiers and the complaint route.
Criminal intimidation online in India is punished under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The section applies to anyone who threatens another with injury to their person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of someone they care about, with intent to cause alarm or to make them do something they are not legally bound to do. The basic offence under Section 351(2) carries imprisonment up to two years, or a fine, or both; where the threat is of death or grievous hurt, the punishment under Section 351(3) rises to seven years, or a fine, or both.
Online threats are charged the same way as threats made in person. A message that says a family member will be harmed, a post that threatens to destroy a business's reputation, or an anonymous email that warns of consequences unless money is dropped somewhere all fall within the section. Where the threat is made anonymously or with the sender's identity concealed, Section 351(4) adds a further punishment of up to two years on top of the basic sentence.
What Section 351 requires you to prove
The section does not punish every unpleasant message. It requires a threat of a particular kind and a particular intent. The threat must be of injury to the person threatened, or to their reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of someone in whom they are interested. And it must be made either to cause alarm, or to make the person do something they are not legally bound to do, or to make them omit to do something they are legally entitled to do, as a way of avoiding the threat.
Two illustrations the legislature gives are useful. Threatening to burn a person's house to stop them from pursuing a civil suit is criminal intimidation. Warning someone of consequences unless a debt is waived, or unless a complaint is withdrawn, fits the same pattern. The key is that the threat is a means of pressure, not merely an expression of anger.
The three tiers of punishment under Section 351
| Sub-section | Conduct | Maximum punishment |
|---|---|---|
| 351(2) | Criminal intimidation (basic) | Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| 351(3) | Threat of death or grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, or imputing unchastity to a woman | Imprisonment up to 7 years, or fine, or both |
| 351(4) | Threat made by anonymous communication or with the sender's identity concealed | Up to 2 years, in addition to the punishment above |
Sub-section (4) is the one that most often applies online, because threats are commonly sent from unknown numbers, throwaway accounts or email addresses that hide the sender. Where the sender's account is later traced, the anonymity does not help the accused; it simply adds to the sentence.
Threats and lawful warnings: where the line falls
Not every warning is criminal intimidation. A lawyer's notice stating that a suit will be filed, a lender's reminder that recovery proceedings will follow, or an employer's warning of disciplinary action is a statement of lawful consequences, not a threat to injure person, reputation or property. The distinction is not the tone of the message but its content: does it threaten an unlawful injury, and is it used to make the recipient do something they are not legally bound to do? A demand backed by a threat of harm crosses the line; a notice backed by the law does not.
The awkward classification: non-cognizable and bailable
Here is the practical problem with Section 351. In the central classification the offence is non-cognizable and bailable. Non-cognizable means a police officer cannot investigate it without an order from a Magistrate, so a straightforward walk-in complaint at a police station will not automatically lead to an FIR. This is not a bar to justice; it changes the route.
A victim has two practical options. First, file a written complaint with the police, who will record it and, for a non-cognizable offence, refer the matter to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Second, file a private complaint directly before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who can take cognizance and direct the matter to be dealt with under the law. Where the threat is serious enough to amount to an offence that is cognizable — for instance where it is part of extortion under Section 308 BNS, or where content is also obscene under Section 67 of the IT Act — an FIR can be registered under Section 173 BNSS in the ordinary way. Some states have made criminal intimidation cognizable by amendment, so the local position should be checked.
Where the police fail to act on a matter that is cognizable, the aggrieved person can complain to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and then move the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS for a direction to investigate. In an appropriate case, the High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS can be invoked, though courts prefer that the statutory remedies be tried first.
Proving the offence in an online case means proving three things together: the exact words used, the fact that they were communicated to the victim, and the intention behind them. That is why the original message, not a paraphrase of it, is the heart of the case. A complainant who writes only that she was “threatened over WhatsApp” gives the court nothing to work with; a complainant who attaches the message, the sender's handle and the date gives it everything.
Common forms of criminal intimidation online
- Direct threats of physical harm or of harm to family, sent by message, email or social media.
- Threats to damage or shut down a business, or to ruin a professional's reputation unless a demand is met.
- Threats to publish private images unless money is paid — here Section 351 and Section 308 are both attracted.
- Anonymous messages warning of consequences unless a complaint is withdrawn.
- Threats used to silence a witness or to stop a person from pursuing a legal remedy.
How the IT Act and other sections fit
An online threat rarely stands still at one section. Where the sender impersonated someone to send the threat, Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 apply. Where the message is obscene, Section 67 applies. Where the threat is only one element of a course of harassment against a woman, Section 78 BNS on stalking and Section 79 BNS on insulting her modesty may apply. Where a person deliberately posts false information to mislead or alarm, Section 352 BNS on public mischief can be relevant.
A threatened attack on someone's standing can also be defamation under Section 356 BNS, which punishes the making or publishing of an imputation intended to harm reputation. Defamation and criminal intimidation are different offences with different tests, and a complaint should say which one the conduct actually fits rather than lumping both together.
What a victim should do, step by step
- Do not reply or bargain. A response invites escalation and can be misread as willingness to engage.
- Preserve the threat. Screenshot the message with the sender's handle, the date and the platform. Save emails with full headers. Do not delete the thread.
- Report through the platform so a record is created, and keep the complaint reference.
- Report on cybercrime.gov.in or call 1930 where there is any demand for money or any image-based element.
- File a written complaint at the jurisdictional police station. Because the offence is non-cognizable, ask for the complaint to be recorded and note whether it is referred to the Magistrate.
- If the police do not act, move the Magistrate for appropriate orders; where money or images are also involved, a Section 173(4) BNSS complaint to the Superintendent of Police and a Section 175(3) BNSS application can be added.
- Consider protective steps. A lawyer can seek orders restraining the accused from contacting you or publishing the threatened material.
Because the route for a non-cognizable offence is not obvious to most complainants, a short consultation with a cyber crime lawyer in Kolkata before filing can save weeks and avoid a complaint that is closed for want of jurisdiction.
Evidence that decides a criminal intimidation case
| Item | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Screenshots with handle, profile and timestamp | Identifies the sender and the exact words used |
| Original device | Source evidence for the electronic record |
| Platform complaint and reply | Corroborates that the threat was reported and held |
| Records of any money demanded | Connects the threat to extortion |
| Section 63 BSA 2023 certificate | Makes the electronic record admissible |
What decides the outcome
- The words used. Courts read the actual message. A threat must be capable of being understood as a threat, not as a rude remark.
- The intent behind it. The prosecution must show the threat was meant to cause alarm or to compel conduct, which is why the surrounding conversation matters.
- Whether the sender is identified. Anonymous threats are harder to prosecute but not impossible, because platform and subscriber records can be summoned under Section 94 BNSS.
- Whether a demand for property followed. If it did, the case is stronger as extortion under Section 308 BNS, which is non-bailable.
- Whether the threat was carried out. An executed threat changes the charge entirely and usually brings the accused within far graver provisions.
Common mistakes
- Replying to the threat, which creates a two-way exchange the defence can exploit.
- Deleting the messages or the account, which destroys the evidence.
- Filing a vague complaint that does not quote the message or identify the sender.
- Assuming a non-cognizable offence cannot be prosecuted, and doing nothing.
- Waiting, so that platform records and logs become harder to obtain.
If you are the person accused
A criminal intimidation complaint can arise from a genuine dispute, a business falling-out or an angry exchange, and the defence usually turns on context and intent. Was the communication a threat, or a lawful warning of consequences, such as a notice of intended legal action? The section punishes threats, not litigation. Because the basic offence is bailable, bail is ordinarily available, but the court will want to know whether any further contact with the complainant is likely, and may impose conditions. Early advice on how the messages are likely to be read matters a great deal, and the firm's criminal defence page explains how these matters are handled.
When to involve a lawyer
A victim can file a complaint, but Section 351's classification — non-cognizable and bailable — means the path to a court order is not a simple police complaint, and a lawyer's help in selecting the right forum is worth having. A lawyer is also useful when the threat sits alongside extortion or image-based abuse, when the police are slow and a Magistrate's intervention is needed, or when an inter-state or overseas sender makes the investigation more involved. If you are on the receiving end of a complaint, early advice on intention, context and bail is equally important. See the firm's services for cyber crime matters in Kolkata.
Need help with a cyber crime matter?
Tell me what happened and I will tell you what to file, where, and by when. First conversation is free.
Call +91-9007000603 WhatsAppFrequently asked questions
Is criminal intimidation online an offence in India?
Yes. Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes a threat of injury to a person, their reputation or their property, made with intent to cause alarm or to compel them to act against their will. It applies to threats sent by message, email or social media just as to threats made in person. The basic offence carries up to two years, or a fine, or both.
What is the punishment for criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS?
The basic offence under Section 351(2) carries imprisonment up to two years, or a fine, or both. A threat of death or grievous hurt, of destroying property by fire, of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, or of imputing unchastity to a woman carries up to seven years under Section 351(3). An anonymous or concealed threat adds up to two years under Section 351(4).
Is Section 351 a cognizable and bailable offence?
In the central classification, criminal intimidation under Section 351 is non-cognizable and bailable. Non-cognizable means the police need a Magistrate's order to investigate, so a victim may file a complaint with the police or directly before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Some states have amended the position to make it cognizable, so the local rule should be checked.
How do I file a complaint for an online threat?
Preserve the message with the sender's handle and timestamp, report it on the platform, and file a written complaint at the jurisdictional police station. Because the offence is non-cognizable, the matter may be referred to the Magistrate, and a private complaint can also be filed before the Magistrate. Report on cybercrime.gov.in or call 1930 if money, images or extortion are involved.
Does an anonymous online threat carry more punishment?
Yes. Section 351(4) BNS provides a further punishment of up to two years, in addition to the sentence for the substantive offence, where the threat is made by anonymous communication or with the sender's identity concealed. Threats sent from unknown numbers or throwaway accounts are the common case, and tracing the account removes the benefit of the anonymity.
What is the difference between criminal intimidation and extortion?
Criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS punishes the threat itself. Extortion under Section 308 BNS requires that the threat induced the delivery of property. If a demand for money was made and the victim paid, the case is stronger as extortion and is non-bailable; if only a threat was made, criminal intimidation applies, and it is bailable.
Can a threat to damage someone's reputation be an offence?
Yes. A threat of injury to reputation made to cause alarm or to compel conduct is criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS. Separately, making or publishing a false imputation intended to harm reputation can be defamation under Section 356 BNS. The two are different offences with different tests, and a complaint should identify which one the conduct fits.
What evidence is needed for a criminal intimidation case online?
The strongest evidence is the original device on which the threat arrived, dated screenshots showing the sender's handle and the exact words, the platform complaint record, and any demand for money that followed. Because electronic records need a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the original device is far more useful than a forwarded screenshot.
Information for general guidance only and not legal advice. Provisions cited follow the Information Technology Act 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
Related articles
Cyber crime lawyer in your city · Bank account freeze help · Contact