In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that mere threats, without an intention to cause alarm, do not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment, delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan in X v. State & Ors. (CRL.REV.P. 1203/2019), dismissed a revision petition challenging the discharge of four accused individuals.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR (No. 39/2019) registered at Police Station RK Puram on January 31, 2019. The petitioner alleged that she was sexually exploited by the prime accused, Mahesh, for over 13–14 years under the false promise of marriage. Additionally, she claimed that Mahesh’s family members and associates—Respondent Nos. 2 to 5—actively aided and abetted his acts, including threatening her and her father with dire consequences.
The prosecution had charged the respondents under Sections 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence) of the IPC. However, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) of the Special Fast Track Court at Patiala House, in an order dated August 20, 2019, discharged Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, holding that the evidence did not establish a prima facie case against them.
Court’s Analysis and Key Legal Issues
The Delhi High Court analyzed the legal principles governing discharge under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court reiterated the settled law that at the stage of framing charges, a court must examine whether there exists a “grave suspicion” against the accused, rather than requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Addressing the charge of criminal intimidation, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka [(2015) 7 SCC 423], which held:
“Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. Material has to be placed on record to show that the intention was to cause alarm to the complainant.”
In this case, the petitioner claimed that Mahesh’s mother and brother (Respondent Nos. 2 and 4) threatened her and her father to prevent legal action. However, the court found that the allegations were vague and lacked corroborative evidence. The petitioner’s father was allegedly hospitalized due to threats, but no medical or documentary proof was produced. The court observed that a disapproval of a relationship, even if forcefully expressed, does not automatically amount to criminal intimidation unless it instills genuine fear in the complainant.
Furthermore, the petitioner accused Respondent No. 5 of facilitating her sexual assault in 2015 by locking her in a room with Mahesh. However, the court noted inconsistencies in her statements and a lack of supporting evidence. The alleged statement of Respondent No. 5—“Is the work done?”—was insufficient to establish active participation in the crime.
Decision of the Court
Upholding the trial court’s discharge order, Justice Mahajan ruled:
“A bare perusal of Section 506 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. Mere threats given without such intent would not constitute an offence.”
The court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing that while Mahesh remained accused in the case, there was no material on record to implicate Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
