The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer cannot be accused of criminal intimidation merely for being present while discharging professional duties like giving legal advice. Vague allegations without clear intent to cause alarm are not enough to attract Section 506 of the IPC, the Court held.
The Supreme Court of India has quashed a criminal case registered against an advocate and clearly stated that a lawyer cannot be accused of criminal intimidation merely for performing his professional duty. The Court held that the simple presence of a lawyer for giving legal advice or suggestions does not amount to intimidation under law.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P. B. Varale observed that vague allegations without proper and clear evidence cannot attract the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court stressed that there must be a clear intention to cause alarm for such an offence to be made out.
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal case registered against advocate Beri Manoj, who is the uncle of one of the accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case. Manoj had been accused only of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
While examining the record, the Bench noted inconsistencies in the statements made by the victim. The Court found that the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which is given before a police officer, was later changed and expanded in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC before a Magistrate.
The Court observed:
“Last but not the least, 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 and this is foundational fact being conspicuously absent in the instant case, we are perforced to disagree with the contention of learned counsel for the complainant (victim) and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 the State,”
The Bench further said that criminal intimidation requires a clear intention to cause alarm, whether or not the victim was actually alarmed. From the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, the Court found no such intention on the part of the advocate.
The Court stated:
“In the absence thereof, continuation of the prosecution against the appellant by virtue of a vague reference to the expression ‘an uncle’ cannot, by itself, disclose any offence. Vague allegations unsupported by prima facie cogent evidence cannot constitute an offence indicated under section 506 of the IPC,”
The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Manoj in 2022. At the same time, the Court made it clear that the case would continue against the other accused persons before the competent trial court.
Referring to earlier judgments, the Bench reiterated that mere threats without intention to cause alarm do not amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC.
The Court noted:
“In the instant case, as could be seen from the records, the prosecutrix improved her statement which came to be recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC alleging that ‘two aunts and an uncle threatened’ her, which is a clear improvement from the statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. “
The Bench further highlighted the delay and contradiction in the statements, pointing out that the advocate’s name appeared only after several days, which seriously weakened the prosecution’s case.
“This contradiction in timing of events created a serious doubt in the prosecution’s version or, in other words, the appellant’s name suddenly surfaced after seven days through a vague reference to ‘an uncle’ and thereby further weakening the prosecution’s case,”
The Supreme Court again emphasised that words alone are not enough to constitute criminal intimidation unless there is a clear intention to cause fear or alarm.
The Bench concluded:
“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 case originated from an FIR registered in 2022 against three persons. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against five persons, including advocate Manoj.
The Supreme Court noted that the only allegation against Manoj was criminal intimidation, which was based solely on the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, given eight days after the alleged incident.
The Court held that such delayed and vague allegations, without strong supporting evidence, cannot justify continuing criminal proceedings against a lawyer for merely doing his professional duty.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Criminal Intimidation
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
