Mere Presence Of Advocate In Professional Capacity Of Giving Advice Can't Amount To Criminal Intimidation : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal intimidation case against an advocate, holding that advice or suggestions given to a client in the course of professional duties cannot be construed as criminal intimidation.
“…the mere presence of a lawyer (appellant in the instant case) in his capacity of discharging professional duty of either giving advice or suggestion cannot amount to intimidation.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.
It was the case where the complainant, a victim in a sexual offence case, had alleged that the Appellant-advocate had threatened and criminally intimidated her. The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix, in her Section 164 statement, alleged that the uncle of accused No. 1 along with two aunts had threatened her to falsely support the main accused in the sexual assault case.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision refusing to quash the case, the advocate moved to the Supreme Court.
However, the Supreme Court noted that in the earlier statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the prosecutrix had not alleged any threat by the appellant and had only stated that she had gone to his house. The allegation of threat surfaced for the first time after seven days in the Section 164 statement.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court pointed out the contradiction in the prosecutrix versions, stating that “the appellant's name suddenly surfaced after seven days…”, when at the initial stage itself in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC of the prosecutrix for reasons best known has not even whispered of any threat having been posed by the appellant herein except to the extent of stating that she had gone to the appellant's house.
“Hence, we are of the considered view that the allegation in the prosecutrix statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC would be insufficient in law to proceed against the appellant for being prosecuted under Section 506 of the IPC”, the court held, reiterating that “Vague allegations unsupported by prima facie cogent evidence cannot constitute offence indicated under Section 506 of the IPC.”
Mere Threats Not Enough For Section 506 IPC
Relying on its earlier decisions in Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sharif Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that mere threats, without an intention to cause alarm, do not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
“In the instant case, mere expression of words, without any intention to cause alarm, cannot amount to criminal intimidation,” the Court held, adding that prosecution for the offence requires a clear intention to cause alarm, irrespective of whether the victim was actually alarmed or not.
The Bench further held that vague allegations unsupported by prima facie cogent evidence could not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation.
The Court also noted that the appellant was a lawyer and that mere presence of a lawyer in his professional capacity, whether for giving advice or suggestions, could not by itself amount to intimidation. The Court found that even this foundational fact was conspicuously absent in the case.
Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, the pending criminal case stands quashed.
Cause Title: BERI MANOJ VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 92
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Thoppani Sanjeev Rao, Adv. Eksha Sehgal, Adv. Nishesh Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Animesh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. S. Sathvik Reddy, Adv. Ms. Monika Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Kabir Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, AOR