In a significant intervention touching the limits of criminal liability, the Supreme Court stepped in to examine whether a lawyer could be prosecuted for criminal intimidation solely on the basis of a belated and allegedly embellished statement by a minor prosecutrix, raising sharp questions about the misuse of Section 506 IPC and the evidentiary value of delayed accusations in serious criminal cases.
The controversy began when an FIR registered in 2022 over a sexual assault case was expanded to rope in the appellant, a lawyer and relative of the main accused. While the core allegations of sexual offences were against other accused, the lawyer was implicated only for criminal intimidation, based on a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC nearly a week after the incident.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecutrix’s initial statement under Section 161 CrPC made no allegation of threats at all and that the appellant’s name surfaced later through a vague reference to “an uncle.” It was further contended that the appellant’s mere presence or professional involvement could not, by itself, amount to intimidation. The High Court, however, declined to quash the proceedings, terming the issue fit for trial, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court found the prosecution’s case against the appellant legally fragile from the outset. Noting a clear contradiction between the two statements, the Bench held that the later version was a material improvement that cast serious doubt on the allegation. Quoting settled law, the Court reiterated that “mere threats without intention to cause alarm do not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC.” It underscored that the prosecutrix’s Section 164 statement, recorded after seven days, introduced allegations absent in the earlier version, weakening the prosecution beyond repair.
The Court also made a crucial observation that “mere expression of words, without any intention to cause alarm cannot amount to criminal intimidation,” and clarified that a lawyer discharging professional duties cannot be criminally prosecuted in the absence of clear, cogent material. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant alone, while permitting the trial to continue against the remaining accused.
Case Title: Beri Manoj Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.14741/2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice ARAVIND KUMAR, Hon'ble Justice PRASANNA B. VARALE,
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Thoppani Sanjeev Rao, Adv. Eksha Sehgal, AOR Nishesh Sharma,
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Prerna Singh, AOR Guntur Pramod Kumar, Adv. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Animesh Upadhyay, Adv.S. Sathvik Reddy, Adv.Monika Bhardwaj, Adv.Kabir Singh, AOR Prashant Rawat,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
