Mere presence of lawyer in discharge of professional duty not intimidation: SC

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale said vague allegations unsupported by prima facie cogent evidence cannot constitute an offence indicated under Section 506 of the IPC criminal intimidation.

Quashing a criminal case registered against an advocate, the Supreme Court has said that mere presence of a lawyer in his capacity of discharging professional duty of either giving advice or suggestion cannot amount to intimidation. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale said vague allegations unsupported by prima facie cogent evidence cannot constitute an offence indicated under Section 506 of the IPC (criminal intimidation). The top court quashed the criminal case for offence under Section 506 of the IPC registered against lawyer Beri Manoj, who is an uncle of an accused in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) case. The bench noted that there was improvement in the statement of the victim given under Section 161 of the CrPC (statement before a police officer) and Section 164 of the CrPC (statement before a magistrate). ''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 said in its order of January 20. The top court said it notices from the clear statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC that no intention of criminal intimidation was prima facie established since prosecution of a person for criminal intimidation requires clear intention to cause alarm, irrespective of whether the victim was alarmed or not. ''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,'' it said. The top court set aside the order of the high court and quashed the proceedings initiated against Manoj in 2022 and made it clear that proceedings will proceed against the other accused before the jurisdictional trial court. Referring to earlier decisions of the apex court, the bench said it has been held that mere threats without intention to cause alarm do not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC. ''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. ''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 bench said. The top court said mere expression of words, without any intention to cause alarm, cannot amount to criminal intimidation. ''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,'' it said. An FIR in 2022 was registered against three people and on completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against five people, in which Manoj was arraigned as an accused. The top court noted that the chargesheet material would disclose that the main charge against Manoj was for criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC which was based on a statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC by the victim after eight days of the alleged incident.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)