This section punishes the original threat of injury itself (like threatening to hit someone).

It specifically punishes threatening someone to stop them from seeking legal protection from a public servant — it's about blocking access to protection, not the underlying injury threat itself.

This law applies to threats against public servants themselves.

It actually applies to threats against an ordinary person, made to stop that person from approaching a public servant for protection — the public servant isn't the one being threatened here.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 190

repealed

Threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant

Whoever holds out any threat of injury to any person for the purpose of inducing that person to refrain or desist from making a legal application for protection against any injury to any public servant legally empowered as such to give such protection, or to cause such protection to be given, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.§

Why this exists

The Indian Penal Code, drafted in 1860 under British colonial rule, included a set of offences meant to protect the machinery of law and order from interference. This section belongs to a group of provisions (Sections 186–190) that punish threats or obstruction aimed at public servants or at people trying to reach public servants for lawful help. The idea is that if someone can be scared away from seeking official protection, the entire system of law enforcement becomes toothless — victims stay silent, and public servants can't do their protective duty.

Common misconceptions

Myth: This section punishes the original threat of injury itself (like threatening to hit someone).
Fact: It specifically punishes threatening someone to stop them from seeking legal protection from a public servant — it's about blocking access to protection, not the underlying injury threat itself.
Myth: This law applies to threats against public servants themselves.
Fact: It actually applies to threats against an ordinary person, made to stop that person from approaching a public servant for protection — the public servant isn't the one being threatened here.