The Supreme Court has quashed a case of criminal intimidation registered at the behest of an advocate under Sections 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against an accused. The Apex Court noted that the chargesheet though voluminous did not level any specific allegation against the accused appellant and despite being a practicing advocate the FIR was lodged a few days after the occurrence of the alleged incident.

The appellant approached the Apex Court aggrieved by the dismissal of his application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated, “There is also an allegation raised that on 29.04.2023 at about 08:30 pm, the 3 rd respondent along with an associate, ransacked her office, assaulted her and took away cash and mobiles belonging to her. Though, the heinous acts are said to have been committed on 29.04.2023, despite being a practicing lawyer, an FIR was filed only on 04.05.2023.”

Factual Background

A complaint was filed by the second respondent, a practicing advocate, under Sections 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was alleged that the appellant, in aid of his friend, the third respondent, who was the client of the second respondent, had intimidated her and used abusive language. The High Court was of the view that since a chargesheet was filed, the appellant should take the remedy available before the jurisdictional Trial Court. The appellant claimed that being a Central Government employee, he was unnecessarily dragged in.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the records and the FIR, the Bench noted it was mentioned in the First Information Statement that the third respondent had failed to pay Rs 10,00,000 as lawyer’s fee due to her. The allegation against the appellant was that he called her over the telephone and threatened her if the demand for fees was not withdrawn.

“The chargesheet produced at Annexure P-7 is voluminous but does not level any specific allegation against the appellant herein. The investigation carried out was primarily against the 3 rd respondent and eventually, while finding a number of offences having been established against the 3 rd respondent, abruptly it is stated that prima facie charge under Sections 506 and 509 read with Section 34 IPC is well established against the other two accused persons i.e., the appellant herein and 4th respondent, father of the 3rd respondent, who is said to be an aged man”, it added.

On a perusal of the FIR and the chargesheet, the Bench found no reason to permit the continuance of the proceedings against the appellant. Allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “We, hence, direct that the proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR No.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 in the Howrah Police Station, leading to the Chargesheet No.191 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023, shall stand set aside. The FIR and the charge sheet shall stand quashed.”

Cause Title: Kanad Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 877)

Click here to read/download Order



Justice JB PardiwalaJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.