Vague Remarks Not Criminal Intimidation: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Advocates Accused Of Threatening Woman In Court Premises

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC and Article 227 of the Constitution challenging judgments of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents under Sections 325 and 506 IPC, while convicting them under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and releasing them on probation.

A Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while observing that “vague, general or indeterminate remarks, or expressions of anger or displeasure in the heat of the moment, which neither specify the nature of the injury threatened nor are shown to have actually caused alarm or coerced the complainant into altering her lawful conduct, fall short of the statutory threshold for criminal intimidation under Sections 503/506 IPC”, held that the allegation against the advocate that he told the complainant that “… if she came again in the court, she would not be spared, … does not indicate what injury to her person, reputation or property was contemplated, nor is there any material to show that it in fact, caused such alarm as to overbear her will or to deter her from pursuing her legal remedies”.

Senior Advocate Satish Tamta appeared for the petitioners. Advocates Vikram Singh appeared for the respondents.

Background

The dispute arose from an altercation that took place at Tis Hazari Courts in January 2010 when the complainant and her family members had come to attend proceedings in a matrimonial dispute.

According to the prosecution, after the court proceedings were adjourned owing to a lawyers’ strike, respondent No. 2 Rohit Nagpal, who was stated to be a close friend of the complainant’s husband, allegedly engaged in a verbal altercation with the complainant and her family members and threatened that he would obtain a divorce for the husband without payment of alimony.

It was further alleged that respondent No. 2, along with two advocate associates, assaulted the complainant’s father and brother, causing injuries to them.

Following the investigation, chargesheet was filed under Sections 342, 325, 323 and 506 IPC against the respondents.

The trial court convicted the respondents under Sections 323 and 341 IPC but acquitted them of offences under Sections 325 and 506 IPC. The respondents were released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The complainants thereafter challenged both the acquittal under Sections 325 and 506 IPC as well as the sentence releasing the respondents on probation.

Court’s Observation

The High Court first examined the challenge to the acquittal under Section 325 IPC relating to grievous hurt.

The Court noted that although medical records and X-ray reports had been produced during trial, the doctors who had authored the MLCs and radiology reports were not examined, and the documents had merely been exhibited through hospital record clerks. The Bench reiterated that while a record clerk may prove the existence of medical records, such a witness is not competent to prove the contents thereof.

The Court further noted that the X-ray reports had not been filed with the chargesheet initially and had surfaced after nearly five years during evidence. Moreover, the radiologist who prepared the reports had not been examined.

The Bench therefore held that the trial court and appellate court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and concluded that grievous injury had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the offence under Section 506 IPC, the Court examined the legal ingredients of criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 IPC. The Bench observed that criminal intimidation requires proof of a threat to cause injury to a person, reputation or property coupled with the intention to cause alarm or compel the complainant to either perform or omit a legally permissible act.

The Court referred to Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015), wherein the Supreme Court held that “mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient” to attract Sections 503 and 506 IPC.

The Bench also relied upon Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka (2025) and Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025), reiterating that there must exist a clear threat of injury made with the intention to cause alarm.

The Court further referred to the Delhi High Court judgment in Amitabh Adhar v. State, wherein it was held that the absence of any specific threat of injury or intention to cause alarm would negate the offence of criminal intimidation.

Applying the above principles, the Court examined the allegation that respondent No. 2 had told the complainant that “if she came again to the court, she would not be spared.”

The Bench held that the statement did not disclose the nature of the injury allegedly threatened, and there was no material showing that it had actually caused alarm sufficient to deter the complainant from pursuing legal remedies.

The Court observed that “such an indeterminate remark cannot be elevated to a criminally intimidatory threat within the meaning of Sections 503.”

The Bench noted that the incident arose out of a matrimonial dispute, that the altercation had occurred spontaneously after attending court proceedings, and that the respondents had not been involved in any similar incident since 2010. The Court held that the trial court had rightly considered probation to be an appropriate punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the respondents under Sections 325 and 506 IPC and found no infirmity in the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge.

The Court further upheld the sentence, releasing the respondents on probation for offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, holding that the circumstances did not warrant enhancement of the sentence.

Accordingly, the petition challenging the acquittal and sentence was dismissed along with all pending applications.

Cause Title: Monika Aggarwal & Ors. v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3798)

Appearances

Appellants: Senior Advocate Satish Tamta; Advocates Shariq Iqbal, Manavi Joshi, Sonika Rathore

Respondents: Advocates Vikram Singh Panwar, Neeraj Maurya

Click here to read/download Judgment