Pranav B Prem

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that mere threats by an accused without the intention to cause alarm to the complainant do not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court emphasized that for criminal intimidation to be established, the accused must have intended to instill fear in the complainant. "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 observed.

Case Background

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging a trial court’s order that discharged four accused persons in an FIR registered in 2019 under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The complainant had alleged that the accused no.1 had physically exploited her for 13-14 years on the false pretext of marriage. The FIR also implicated the brother and mother of the said accused, along with another person, on allegations that they threatened her with dire consequences instead of restraining the accused from his actions. However, the trial court discharged accused persons 2 to 5, finding the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to establish a prima facie case against them. The complainant then challenged this order before the Delhi High Court.

High Court’s Analysis and Observations

The High Court, after reviewing the material on record, held that the trial court’s decision was justified and required no interference. It noted that the complainant’s allegations lacked sufficient corroborative evidence. The Court pointed out that the Investigating Officer had not collected any documentary or medical evidence to substantiate the claim that the complainant’s 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 stated.

Evaluation of Criminal Intimidation Charges

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015) 7 SCC 423, which held that for an offence under Section 506 IPC, the threat must be made with the intent to cause alarm to the complainant or compel them to act against their will. Mere expression of words, without an intention to instill fear, does not amount to criminal intimidation. Referring to this principle, the High Court held that the complainant’s allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not indicate an intention to cause alarm. The Court found that the allegations against the mother, brother, and friend of the primary accused were vague and unsubstantiated. It also observed that disapproval of a relationship or expressions of anger by family members do not amount to criminal intimidation.

Findings of the Court

The Court concluded that the prosecution’s case suffered from inconsistencies and a lack of supporting evidence. It emphasized that the legal threshold for framing charges requires a grave suspicion of wrongdoing, which was absent in this case. "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 held. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the complainant’s petition, affirming the trial court’s order of discharge for Respondents No. 2 to 5.

Cause Title: X v. STATE & ORS

Case No: CRL.REV.P. 1203/2019

Date: January-27-2025

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

[Read/Download order]