D. P. HIREMATH, J. ( 1 ) 1. The petitioners herein 36 members of dharwad Bar Association against whom process was issued by the order of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, dharwad, dated 29-8-1987 on a private complaint filed by the respondent here in venkatesh Bhimrao Kulkarni another member of the same Bar. That complaint was for offences under Section 499, 504 and 506 I. P. C. The operative portion of the order at para-4 reads as follows :-"however, the offence under Section 499 and 504 I. P. C. are not made out Prima facie. The complainant though submitted that the resolutiom was given a wide publicity in a daily Samyukta karnataka newspaper and thereby the accused have defamed in the eye of public, same is not produced. Hence, I order to register the case against accused nos. 2 to 54 for an offence under Section 506 (1) I. P. C. Register it and issue summons. " ( 2 ) REFERRING to the ingredients of the offences of criminal intimidation as ennumerated in Section 503 I. P. C. , the Court said at para-3 that by such resolution the accused 2 to 54 have prima facie compelled the complainant to do an act "which that person is legally entitled to do". Further, the resolution of the Bar Association dismembering him from the Association is sufficient to create a disrepute of the complainant in the public. This is the reason by which process came to be issued against these petitioners. That order is now questioned in this petition and they aver that members of Dharwad Bar Association have got a very good reputation throughout karnataka. The Bar Association resolved that the respondent herein should be expelled from the membership of the association. The petitioners have not at all threatened the respondent herein with any injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause him to do any act which he is not legally bound to do. He was dismembered from the Association for the reason that he has acted detrimental to interests of Dharwad Bar Association in as much as he has circulated number of pamphlets in the public which defame and lower the dignity of Dharwad Bar association and its members. They maintained that they have not at all compelled him to do an act which he was legally not entitled to do. They maintained that they have not at all compelled him to do an act which he was legally not entitled to do. ( 3 ) THE respondent, though duly served, has remained absent and he is not even represented. Arguments were heard for the petitioner herein. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the same points urged in the grounds of the petition and contended that simply because the respondent was dismembered from the Bar association it cannot be said that petitioners have committed any offence falling under section 506 Part-I of the I. P. C. Though the trial Court has reproduced the contents of section 503 I. P. C. defining "criminal intimidation", it is necessary to reproduce the same here also. ""whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimation. Explanation.-A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. " ( 4 ) IN the complaint filed before the trial court which was pretty lengthy, the respondent has stated inter alia how he was striving to uphold the dignity of the Courts and was totally opposed to boycott of the Courts. It appears there was some hitch among the members of Bar Association on account of shifting of one of the District Courts from dharwad to Hubli. It also appears that some of the members were opposed to this shifting of the Court and staged protest in various manners. The respondent was not boycotting the Courts on that account. This is the cause for unhappiness creeping in and strained relation between the respondent and members of Dharwad Bar. The background so stated is not of much relevance but it is the resolution that needs scrutiny to assess whether the words used therein could be brought prima facie within the mischief of section 503. This is the cause for unhappiness creeping in and strained relation between the respondent and members of Dharwad Bar. The background so stated is not of much relevance but it is the resolution that needs scrutiny to assess whether the words used therein could be brought prima facie within the mischief of section 503. The same has been reproduced in the impugned order at para-2 it says :"it is hereby resolved by the members of this Bar Association that Shri Venkatesh kulkarni, Advocate, has acted detrimental to the interest of this Bar Association and the same is a reasonable ground to take action against him. He is dismembered from dharwad Bar Association with immediate effect for his act of the circulation of pamphlets in the public which defames and lowers the dignity of the Dharwad Bar association and its members. "undisputedly, the respondent was not personally present when this resolution was passed on 28-11-1985 and he has also stated in the statement on oath before the process was issued in the court below that he himself pardoned some of the members who expressed regret for participating in the meeting on that day. One of the most material ingredients of the offence under section 503 I. P. C. is holding of threat by one person to another with any injury to his person, reputation or property. When the respondent was not personally present in that meeting, the question of he being threatened does not arise. Therefore, ultimately, the resolution itself has to be interpreted and its effect considered. In his statement on oath, he has stated that in the event of he complying with the requirements of the resolution, there could have been breach of contract between him and his clients. But, even a casual reading of the resolution, does not show anywhere that he was required to do any act which would caused breach of contract between him and his clients. Therefore, the resolution which, for some act alleged to have been committed by respondent, dismembered him does not hold any threat to the respondent with injury to his person, reputation of property. Therefore, the resolution which, for some act alleged to have been committed by respondent, dismembered him does not hold any threat to the respondent with injury to his person, reputation of property. Needless to say that the conduct of the members of an Association or Society is governed by the byelaws of the Association and in a democratic set up the members of the Association are free to conduct the affairs of their Association in the manner they deem proper and in the best interest of the Association. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the resolution makes reference to certain pamphlets which the respondent is alleged to have circulated and which according to them was detrimental to fair name and reputation of the Association. At the most a member who is dismembered may loose the membership of the association but for the simple reason that he is expelled from the membership of the association, it does not follow that the members who participated in the meeting committed the offence falling under Section 503 I. P. C. In this behalf decision of the lahore High Court in the case of GHULAM muhammed v EMPEROR 32 (1931) criminal Law Journal-page 1176 may be quoted briefly. The learned judge while considering the scope of Section 506 I. P. C. in respect to threat of social boycott, observed : "the threat of a social boycott is not a threat to a man's person or reputation unless it is accompanied by something more directly affecting his character as an individual. " ( 6 ) IN that case, accused was convicted under section 506 I. P. C. for having threatened the complainant who was a pious Muhammadan that the complainant would be socially boycotted, and on his death no one would carry his dead body to the place of burial if he continued to deal in foreign cloth. " ( 6 ) IN that case, accused was convicted under section 506 I. P. C. for having threatened the complainant who was a pious Muhammadan that the complainant would be socially boycotted, and on his death no one would carry his dead body to the place of burial if he continued to deal in foreign cloth. ( 7 ) SIMILARLY, the Madras High Court in the case of SELATHU AND OTHERS (1948 (2) mlj-522) held that threat of social boycott if certain persons continued to work as agricultural labourers for their masters with whom the other labourers were trying to secure better terms does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 506 I. P. C. ( 8 ) THE learned judge observed"it is difficult to see how it can be illegal to ask the barber and washerman not to shave or wash the clothes of those who refuse to help in securing better conditions of agricultural service. Accordingly a threat of social boycott is not an offence punishable under Section 506 I. P. C. " ( 9 ) SOME agricultural labourers were trying to improve their lot by bargaining with the mirasdras to obtain better conditions and trying to pursuade their fellow labourers not to work until they had secured better terms. They wanted to enforce social boycott against those who decided to work. It was held this did not amount to 'injury' under section 44 of the Penal Code. ( 10 ) IN my view the decisions aforesaid squarely attract the point involved in the instant case. It does not amount to 'injury' within the meaning of Section 44 of the Penal code. He may have remedy elesewhere if he feels aggrieved by such resolution and if he maintains that the members of the association were not competent to pass such a resolution. What is required to be established even prima facie in a case falling under Section 503 of the I. P. C. is a threat that the members held against him as required under Section 503 I. P. C. It has come on record that the respondent has also filed a civil suit against the Association for passing such resolution. That apart, the trial court did not properly read the ingredients of Section 503 I. P. C. and consider if the case on hand really attracts these ingredients. That apart, the trial court did not properly read the ingredients of Section 503 I. P. C. and consider if the case on hand really attracts these ingredients. It is difficult to understand how the resolution compelled the respondent to omit to do any act which he was not legally entitled to do or caused disreputation to him. An Advocate can practise law without being a member of a bar Association. It is purely one's own choice either to subscribe to its membership or refrain from doing it. Seldom litigants are interested to know whether the Advocate of their choice is a member of the local Bar. In brief, being or not being such member is inconsequential as far as the right of an advocate to legal practice at a particular place or in particular Court is concerned. The trial Court fell in serious error in issueing process against the petitioners and the impugned order is wholly unsustainable. ( 11 ) THE petition is allowed and the order of the court below issueing process against the petitioners is quashed. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .