- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 225: Threat of Injury to Induce Person to Refrain from Applying for Protection to Public Servant
Introduction
Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) protects a person’s right to seek lawful protection from a competent public servant.
The section punishes a person who threatens another with injury in order to stop that person from making a lawful application for protection against injury to a public servant who is legally empowered to provide, or arrange, such protection.
The central idea is:
THREAT OF INJURY + PURPOSE TO STOP LAWFUL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION = SECTION 225
Q1. What does Section 225 punish?
Answer:
Section 225 punishes a person who:
- Holds out a threat of injury to another person;
- Does so for the purpose of inducing that person:
- To refrain; or
- To desist
- from making a legal application for protection;
- The application would be made to a public servant;
- That public servant is legally empowered to provide, or cause to be provided, such protection.
Q2. What is the object of Section 225?
Answer:
The object is to ensure that a person who is entitled to seek legal protection from a competent authority is not intimidated into silence.
The section protects:
- Access to lawful protection;
- Freedom from intimidation;
- Proper functioning of public authorities;
- The right to approach a public servant for protection.
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 225 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 225 BNS = Section 190 IPC
Q4. Has Section 225 changed under the BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
- The language remains unchanged; and
- The provision has been retained as it is.
Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 225?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- There must be a threat of injury;
- The threat must be held out to a person;
- The purpose must be to induce that person to:
- Refrain from; or
- Desist from
- making a legal application for protection;
- The application must be for protection against injury;
- It must be intended for a public servant;
- That public servant must be legally empowered to give, or cause to be given, such protection.
Formula
THREAT OF INJURY + PURPOSE TO PREVENT LEGAL APPLICATION + COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT = SECTION 225
Q6. What is the prohibited act?
Answer:
The prohibited act is:
HOLDING OUT A THREAT OF INJURY
Q7. Must actual injury be caused?
Answer:
No.
The section is based on the threat, not on the actual carrying out of the threatened injury.
Q8. What does “holds out any threat of injury” mean?
Answer:
It means communicating or conveying a threat of harm to another person.
The important point is that the threat is used as pressure to stop that person from seeking lawful protection.
Q9. Is every threat covered by Section 225?
Answer:
No.
The threat must be made for the particular purpose of inducing the person:
NOT TO APPLY FOR LEGAL PROTECTION
Q10. What is the required mental element?
Answer:
The required purpose is:
TO INDUCE THE PERSON TO REFRAIN OR DESIST FROM MAKING A LEGAL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION
This specific purpose is central.
Q11. What is the meaning of “refrain”?
Answer:
It means to prevent the person from making the application in the first place.
Memory
REFRAIN = DO NOT START
Q12. What is the meaning of “desist”?
Answer:
It means to cause the person to stop or abandon the process of making the application.
Memory
DESIST = STOP / GIVE UP
Q13. Why does the section use both “refrain” and “desist”?
Answer:
Because the law protects both situations:
- Preventing the person from ever approaching the authority; and
- Forcing the person to abandon or discontinue the application.
Q14. What kind of application must be involved?
Answer:
It must be a:
LEGAL APPLICATION
for protection against injury.
Q15. Is an illegal or unlawful application protected by this section?
Answer:
The text specifically refers to a:
LEGAL APPLICATION
Therefore, the application contemplated by Section 225 must itself be lawful.
Q16. What must the person be seeking protection against?
Answer:
The application must be for protection against:
ANY INJURY
Q17. Must the threatened injury and the injury against which protection is sought be the same?
Answer:
The section does not expressly require them to be identical.
The focus is on the threat being used to stop the person from seeking lawful protection against injury.
Q18. To whom must the application be made?
Answer:
The application must be intended for:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
Q19. Is any public servant sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The public servant must be:
LEGALLY EMPOWERED
to:
- Give the protection; or
- Cause the protection to be given.
Q20. Why is legal empowerment important?
Answer:
Because the section protects an application to an authority that lawfully has the power to provide the requested protection.
An application to a person with no legal authority to provide protection would not satisfy this element.
Q21. What does “give such protection” mean?
Answer:
It means that the public servant personally has legal authority to provide the protection sought.
Q22. What does “cause such protection to be given” mean?
Answer:
It means the public servant may not personally deliver the protection but has legal authority to arrange, direct, or procure that it be provided.
Q23. Must the victim actually refrain from applying?
Answer:
The statutory wording focuses on the threat being made:
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING
the person to refrain or desist.
Actual success is not expressly required.
Q24. What if the threatened person ignores the threat and still applies for protection?
Answer:
Section 225 may still be relevant if the threat was made with the required purpose.
The failure of the threat does not necessarily remove the offence.
Q25. What if the person has already made the application?
Answer:
The word “desist” suggests that threatening conduct aimed at making the person stop or abandon the protective process may still fall within the section, depending on the facts.
Q26. Must the threat be made directly to the person seeking protection?
Answer:
The section refers to a threat held out to:
ANY PERSON
for the purpose of inducing that person not to seek protection.
The essential link is between the threat and the intended prevention of the legal application.
Q27. Must the threat be written?
Answer:
No such requirement appears.
The section is broad enough to cover threats communicated in different forms.
Q28. Must the threat be made in person?
Answer:
No.
The supplied text does not limit the threat to face-to-face communication.
Q29. Must the public servant know about the threat?
Answer:
No express requirement to that effect appears.
The offence focuses on the threatener’s conduct and purpose.
Q30. Must the application actually reach the public servant?
Answer:
No.
The section protects the right to make the application itself.
A threat intended to prevent the application may be sufficient even before any application reaches the authority.
Q31. Must protection actually be granted?
Answer:
No.
The offence is concerned with obstructing access to lawful protection, not with whether protection was ultimately granted.
Q32. Give a simple example.
Answer:
A threatens B with injury if B reports ongoing threats to a police officer who is legally empowered to provide protection.
A intends to stop B from making that lawful application.
Section 225 may apply.
Q33. Give an example involving desisting from an application.
Answer:
B has begun seeking protection from a competent authority.
A threatens B with injury unless B withdraws or abandons the request.
If the statutory ingredients are satisfied, Section 225 may apply.
Q34. What if A merely advises B not to apply?
Answer:
Advice alone is not enough.
There must be:
A THREAT OF INJURY
Q35. What if A offers B money not to apply?
Answer:
Section 225 specifically concerns:
THREAT OF INJURY
A purely financial inducement without a threat would not fall within this section on that basis alone.
Q36. Is actual fear necessary?
Answer:
The section focuses on the threat and its purpose.
It does not separately state that the victim must actually experience fear.
Q37. Is success in intimidation necessary?
Answer:
No express requirement of success appears.
The purpose of the threat is the key point.
Q38. Is dishonest intention required?
Answer:
No.
The section does not use “dishonestly.”
The relevant mental element is the specific purpose of preventing or stopping the lawful protective application.
Q39. Is fraudulent intention required?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not an express ingredient.
Q40. Is malicious intention required?
Answer:
No.
The statute does not separately require malice.
Q41. Is financial gain required?
Answer:
No.
No financial benefit is necessary.
Q42. Is actual physical violence required?
Answer:
No.
A threat of injury is sufficient if all the statutory ingredients are present.
Q43. What is the punishment under Section 225?
Answer:
The offender may be punished with:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 YEAR
or
FINE
or
BOTH
Q44. Is there a minimum sentence?
Answer:
No minimum imprisonment is stated in the supplied provision.
Q45. Is there a maximum fine specified?
Answer:
No maximum fine amount is supplied in the text provided.
Therefore, no separate fine ceiling should be invented.
Q46. What is the classification of Section 225?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
- Non-Cognizable
- Bailable
- Any Magistrate
Q47. Is Section 225 cognizable?
Answer:
No.
NON-COGNIZABLE
Q48. Is Section 225 bailable?
Answer:
Yes.
BAILABLE
Q49. Which Court may try the offence?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q50. What is the easiest classification memory?
Answer:
225 = NC + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q51. What right does Section 225 effectively protect?
Answer:
It protects the ability of a person to:
SEEK LAWFUL PROTECTION FROM COMPETENT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WITHOUT INTIMIDATION
Q52. Is the section about protecting the public servant?
Answer:
Indirectly, yes, but its immediate focus is protecting the person who wishes to apply for protection.
The section prevents a wrongdoer from cutting off access to lawful public assistance through threats.
Q53. What public interest does Section 225 protect?
Answer:
It supports:
- Access to legal protection;
- Proper discharge of official protective functions;
- Freedom from intimidation;
- Prevention of private coercion defeating public justice.
Q54. How does Section 225 differ from Section 226?
Answer:
Section 225
The accused:
THREATENS ANOTHER PERSON
to prevent that person from applying to a public servant for protection.
Section 226
The accused:
ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT SUICIDE
to compel or restrain a public servant in the discharge of official duty.
Memory
225 = THREAT VICTIM
226 = PRESSURE PUBLIC SERVANT
Q55. What is the common theme between Sections 225 and 226?
Answer:
Both protect lawful public authority from coercive interference.
But the direction of pressure differs:
Section 225
Pressure is applied to:
THE PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
Section 226
Pressure is applied to:
THE PUBLIC SERVANT
Q56. What is the easiest comparison between Sections 225 and 226?
Answer:
225 = STOP SOMEONE FROM GOING TO AUTHORITY
226 = FORCE AUTHORITY TO ACT OR STOP ACTING
Q57. What is the easiest problem-question test for Section 225?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was there a threat of injury?
- Was it made to induce someone to refrain or desist?
- Was the person being stopped from making a legal application for protection?
- Was the intended application to a public servant?
- Was that public servant legally empowered to provide or arrange protection?
If yes:
SECTION 225 MAY APPLY
Q58. What are the core words to remember?
Answer:
THREAT
INJURY
REFRAIN / DESIST
LEGAL APPLICATION
PROTECTION
PUBLIC SERVANT
Q59. What is the shortest memory formula?
Answer:
“THREATEN SOMEONE SO THEY DO NOT SEEK LEGAL PROTECTION = SECTION 225.”
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Prohibited Conduct
The accused must:
HOLD OUT A THREAT OF INJURY
2. Specific Purpose
The threat must be intended to make the person:
REFRAIN
or
DESIST
from making the protective application.
3. Nature of Application
It must be:
A LEGAL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST INJURY
4. Recipient of Application
The application must be intended for:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
5. Legal Competence
The public servant must be legally empowered:
TO GIVE PROTECTION
or
TO CAUSE PROTECTION TO BE GIVEN
6. Actual Prevention Not Expressly Required
The threat need not necessarily succeed.
The purpose of inducing restraint or abandonment is central.
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
THREAT OF INJURY
+
PURPOSE TO INDUCE REFRAIN/DESIST
+
LEGAL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION
+
PUBLIC SERVANT LEGALLY EMPOWERED
= SECTION 225
Punishment Notes
Section 225 provides:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 YEAR
or
FINE
or
BOTH
Classification Notes
According to the supplied material:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
IPC Equivalent and BNS Position
According to the supplied comments:
Section 225 BNS = Section 190 IPC
The language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it is.
Section 225 vs Section 226
Section 225
THREAT TO STOP PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
Direction of pressure
Toward the person seeking help.
Section 226
SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO COMPEL/RESTRAIN PUBLIC SERVANT
Direction of pressure
Toward the public servant.
Memory
225 = BLOCK ACCESS TO AUTHORITY
226 = COERCE AUTHORITY ITSELF
Quick Revision Notes
Section
225 BNS
Title
Threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant
IPC Equivalent
Section 190 IPC
Act
Threat of injury.
Purpose
Cause person to refrain or desist.
From What?
Making legal application for protection against injury.
To Whom?
Public servant legally empowered to provide or arrange protection.
Actual Success
Not expressly required.
Punishment
Up to 1 year / fine / both.
Classification
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
BNS Change
No substantive change stated.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Thinking every threat falls under Section 225
Incorrect.
The purpose must be to stop a lawful protective application.
Trap 2 — Forgetting “legal application”
The application must be lawful.
Trap 3 — Forgetting protection against injury
The application must be for:
PROTECTION AGAINST INJURY
Trap 4 — Forgetting public servant competence
The public servant must be:
LEGALLY EMPOWERED
to provide or arrange the protection.
Trap 5 — Requiring actual injury
Incorrect.
Threat is enough if the other ingredients are present.
Trap 6 — Requiring actual success
Incorrect.
The section focuses on the purpose of inducing the person to refrain or desist.
Trap 7 — Confusing Section 225 with Section 226
Remember:
225 = THREAT PERSON SEEKING HELP
226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO PRESSURE PUBLIC SERVANT
Trap 8 — Thinking only “refrain” matters
Remember both:
REFRAIN = DO NOT START
DESIST = STOP / ABANDON
Trap 9 — Thinking any official is enough
No.
The official must be legally empowered to provide or arrange the requested protection.
Rapid Revision Link: Sections 225–227
225 = THREAT TO STOP PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO COMPEL/RESTRAIN PUBLIC SERVANT
227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
This creates a useful transition:
PROTECT ACCESS TO AUTHORITY → PROTECT AUTHORITY FROM COERCION → PROTECT TRUTH IN EVIDENCE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 225
THREAT OF INJURY
+
PURPOSE TO MAKE PERSON REFRAIN OR DESIST
+
LEGAL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION
+
PUBLIC SERVANT LEGALLY EMPOWERED TO PROTECT
= UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH
Key Takeaway
Section 225 BNS protects a person’s ability to seek lawful protection from a competent public servant without intimidation.
The essence of the offence is:
THREAT OF INJURY
+ PURPOSE TO STOP THE PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
+ LEGAL APPLICATION
+ COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT
The offender need not actually injure the person or successfully prevent the application. The critical feature is the use of a threat for the prohibited purpose.
According to the supplied comments:
Section 225 BNS = Section 190 IPC
and the provision has been retained without substantive change.
The punishment is:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH
and the offence is:
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Triable by Any Magistrate
Final Memory Line
“225 = THREATEN A PERSON SO THAT THEY DO NOT SEEK LAWFUL PROTECTION FROM A COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT.”
