Mere Threats Without Intention To Cause Alarm To Complainant Not Criminal Intimidation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere threats by the accused without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant does not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation.“A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation,” Justice Amit Mahajan said. The Court rejected the plea filed by a complainant challenging a trial court order discharging four accused persons in a rape case filed by her. The FIR was filed in 2019 under Section 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The woman alleged the primary accused had physically exploited her for 13-14 years on the false pretext of marriage. The FIR was also lodged against the brother and mother of the primary accused. It was alleged that the mother, instead of correcting her son, threatened the complainant of dire consequences. Vide the impugned order, the trial court had discharged the accused persons on the ground that the evidence collected by the prosecution qua them were not sufficient to make out a prima facie case.Rejecting the plea, the Court said that the impugned order aligned with established legal principles and required affirmation.It noted that the Investigating Officer did not collect any documentary or medical evidence to corroborate the complainant's claim that her father was hospitalized due to the alleged threats.“The learned ASJ's observations regarding the petitioner's allegations against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are well-founded. The evidence on record does not substantiate the claims of facilitation, conspiracy, or criminal intimidation,” the Court said. Justice Mahajan concluded that the complainant's story was plagued with infirmities that it did not raise grave suspicion against the accused persons and that the material on record did not point towards commission of the alleged offence.“As discussed above, the learned Trial Court has evidently applied its judicial mind and considered the totality of the facts before discharging Respondent Nos.2 – 5 of the alleged offences in light of the absence of grave suspicion against them. Considering the aforementioned facts, no ground is made out to warrant any interference in the impugned order,” the Court said.Title: X v. STATE & ORSCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 129Click here to read order

Mere Threats Without Intention To Cause Alarm To Complainant Not Criminal Intimidation: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags