Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Lawyer Who Told Litigant She 'Won't Be Spared' If She Comes To Court Again, Calls It “Mere Outburst”
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a lawyer accused of criminal intimidation for allegedly telling a woman litigant that she “won't be spared” if she came to court again.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the statement was merely a vague outburst made during an altercation between the parties and did not amount to a criminal threat under Sections 503 and 506...
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a lawyer accused of criminal intimidation for allegedly telling a woman litigant that she “won't be spared” if she came to court again.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the statement was merely a vague outburst made during an altercation between the parties and did not amount to a criminal threat under Sections 503 and 506 IPC.
The bench thus dismissed a petition challenging the acquittal of advocates Rohit Nagpal, Arun Renu and Dilip Rana in connection with an altercation that occurred back in 2010 at Tis Hazari Courts.
According to the complainants, Monika Aggarwal, her father Krishan Goel and brother Chetan Goel were assaulted by the respondents after a hearing in a matrimonial dispute. The complainants alleged that Rohit Nagpal, a friend of Monika Aggarwal's husband, threatened her by saying that “if she came again in the court, she would not be spared.”
An FIR was registered under Sections 323, 325, 342 and 506 IPC. The trial court later convicted the accused under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and released them on probation, but acquitted them of offences under Sections 325 and 506 IPC. The acquittal was subsequently upheld by the appellate court.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the acquittal under Section 506 IPC was erroneous and contended that the threat extended by the advocate amounted to criminal intimidation.
Examining the scope of Sections 503 and 506 IPC, the High Court said vague, general or indeterminate remarks, or expressions of anger or displeasure in the heat of the moment, which neither specify the nature of the injury threatened nor are shown to have actually caused alarm or coerced the complainant into altering her lawful conduct, fall short of the statutory threshold for criminal intimidation under Sections 503/506 IPC.
In the present case, the Court said, Nagpal's statement did not indicate “what injury to her person, reputation or property was contemplated, nor is there any material to show that it in fact, caused such alarm as to overbear her will or to deter her from pursuing her legal remedies; it is, at best, a vague and unspecific outburst in the course of an altercation in the court premises.”
Reliance was placed on Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka (2025) where the Supreme Court held that there must be a clear act of threatening injury coupled with an intention to cause alarm; where the gravamen is essentially a civil/employment dispute and the alleged “threat” is only to insist on resignation or consequences in service, the ingredients of Section 506 are not made out.
As such, the Court held that the alleged remark could not be elevated to a criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 IPC and dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Mr. Satish Tamta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shariq Iqbal, Ms. Manavi Joshi and Ms. Sonika Rathore, Advocates for Appellants; Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar and Mr. Neeraj Maurya, Advs. for R-3 and R-4
Case title: Monika Aggarwal & Ors. v. State
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 2275/2017