Supreme Court Ruling on Criminal Intimidation
In a significant ruling delivered on 30 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India clarified a crucial principle in criminal law: the mere presence of an advocate giving professional advice or suggestions cannot, by itself, constitute the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale quashed a criminal prosecution against an advocate on these grounds, stressing that legal advice — inherently part of an advocate’s professional duty — cannot be equated with threatening conduct unless accompanied by clear intention to cause alarm.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a criminal intimidation case registered in Andhra Pradesh against an advocate, who was alleged to have threatened a prosecution witness in a sexual offence trial. The complainant, recorded in her Section 164 CrPC statement, claimed that the advocate had intimidated her. However, the advocate’s petition challenged this on multiple legal grounds.
Inconsistencies in the Complainant’s Statements
The Supreme Court noted a critical discrepancy between the complainant’s two statements:
- In the earlier Section 161 CrPC statement, there was no mention of any threat by the advocate; she simply stated that she had visited his residence.
- Only in the later Section 164 CrPC statement did allegations of threats surface.
The Bench observed that this contradiction undermined the reliability of the alleged intimidation and was insufficient to support continuing criminal proceedings.
Clarifying Criminal Intimidation Law
The Court reaffirmed settled principles of criminal intimidation law under Sections 503 and 506 IPC:
- To constitute criminal intimidation, there must be an intentional act that causes alarm to the victim by threatening injury to person, reputation, or property.
- Mere threats without genuine intention to alarm do not satisfy the statutory elements.
Relying on its own precedent and past judgments like Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sharif Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that casual or unsubstantiated assertions of threatening language are insufficient to ground a prosecution for intimidation.
Professional Role of Advocates Is Not Intimidatory
Most importantly, the Supreme Court held that:
“The mere presence of a lawyer in his capacity of discharging professional duty of either giving advice or suggestion cannot amount to intimidation.”
The Bench underscored that legal counsel often requires advising clients on rights, risks, and legal strategies — conduct that in no sense implies a threat unless it is objectively intimidating and fits the statutory definition of Section 506 IPC.
Quashing of Proceedings and Broader Implications
Considering the contradictory testimony, the absence of prima facie evidence of intimidating conduct, and the professional nature of the advocate’s actions, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal intimidation case against the lawyer.
This judgment reaffirms that:
- Advocates are not to be dragged into criminal liability simply for performing their duties in advising clients or interacting with witnesses in a legal capacity.
- Courts must carefully analyze intent and evidence before allowing prosecutions for criminal intimidation to proceed, especially where professional conduct is involved.
