The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate who was arraigned as an accused in a criminal case involving charges of sexual assault. The Court ruled that vague allegations of threats, without a clear intention to cause alarm, do not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed the appeal filed by Beri Manoj, setting aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had refused to quash the proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case originated from FIR No. 389/2022, initially registered against three individuals—Shanthakumar, Devamma, and Uday. Upon the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against five persons. The present appellant, Beri Manoj, was arraigned as Accused No. 5.
The charges included offences punishable under Sections 328 (Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence), 376 (Rape), and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the IPC, read with Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The specific allegation against the appellant was limited to criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC. This charge was primarily based on a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), eight days after the alleged incident. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, identified as the uncle of Accused No. 1 (Chandu Tej), along with two aunts, threatened the prosecutrix to falsely support the main accused or face death.
The appellant approached the High Court seeking the quashing of proceedings, arguing that the victim had improved her statement and that he had perpetrated no act. The High Court, however, dismissed the plea on June 18, 2025, observing that the allegations needed to be scrutinized after a trial and that quashing was not warranted at that stage.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the records, noted a significant discrepancy between the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the subsequent statement under Section 164 CrPC.
The Court observed that in the initial statement under Section 161 CrPC, the prosecutrix “has not even whispered of any threat having been posed by the appellant herein except to the extent of stating that she had gone to the appellant’s house.” However, seven days later, in her Section 164 statement, she alleged: “Chandu tej’s father, uncle and two aunts came there and threatened me stating ‘whatever happens I should talk in favour of Chandu tej, I should keep the blame on me, failing which I will be killed.'”
Contradiction and Improvement in Statement: The Bench termed this a “clear improvement” and stated that the “contradiction in timing of events create a serious doubt in the prosecution’s version.” The Court noted that the appellant’s name suddenly surfaced after seven days through a “vague reference to ‘an uncle’,” thereby weakening the prosecution’s case.
Criminal Intimidation Requires Intention: Citing its recent judgments in Naresh Aneja Vs. State of U.P. (2025) and Sharif Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. (2024), the Court reiterated that “mere threats without intention to cause alarm do not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC.”
The Court held that the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC failed to prima facie establish an intention to cause alarm. The Bench observed: “In the absence thereof continuation of the prosecution against the appellant by virtue of a vague reference to the expression ‘an uncle’ cannot by itself would not disclose any offence. Vague allegations unsupported by prima facie cogent evidence cannot constitute offence indicated under Section 506 of the IPC.”
Role of a Lawyer: Significantly, the Court addressed the appellant’s presence as a legal professional. The Bench remarked: “Last but not the least, the mere presence of a lawyer (appellant in the instant case) in his capacity of discharging professional duty of either giving advice or suggestion cannot amount to intimidation.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the grounds pressed by the appellant deserved to be accepted. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court.
“The proceedings initiated against the appellant vide FIR No.389/2022 qua the appellant alone stands quashed. It is made clear that proceedings shall proceed against others before the jurisdictional trial court,” the Court ordered.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Beri Manoj v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 14741/2025)
- Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Thoppani Sanjeev Rao, Adv., Ms. Eksha Sehgal, Adv., Mr. Nishesh Sharma, AOR
- Counsel for Respondents: Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv., Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR, and others.
