When Does Section 506 IPC Apply? Supreme Court Explains Criminal Intimidation Standard

The Supreme Court has clarified what constitutes the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that vague allegations unsupported by prima facie cogent evidence cannot sustain prosecution. The Court ruled that mere expression of words, without a clear intention to cause alarm, does not amount to criminal intimidation.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale allowed an appeal filed by Beri Manoj, an advocate, who was arrayed as an accused in a 2022 FIR alleging offences under Sections 328, 376 and 506 of the IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The FIR was initially registered against three accused persons. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against five accused, including the appellant, who was shown as Accused No.5. The only allegation against him was of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

What was the allegation of criminal intimidation?

According to the prosecution, the allegation was based entirely on a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, made by the victim girl eight days after the alleged incident. The victim alleged that the uncle of Accused No.1, along with two aunts, threatened her to falsely support the main accused in the sexual assault case, failing which she would be killed.

Why did the appellant approach the High Court?

The appellant sought quashing of the proceedings, arguing that no act of intimidation was attributable to him and that the victim’s statement was an improvement over her earlier version. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the allegations raised triable issues requiring a full trial.

What did the Supreme Court examine?

The Supreme Court closely examined the statements recorded during investigation. It noted that in the victim’s initial statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, there was no allegation of any threat by the appellant. The only reference was that the victim had gone to the appellant’s house.

The Court observed that it was only after seven days that the victim, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, alleged that “an uncle and two aunts” had threatened her. This, the Bench held, amounted to a clear improvement in the prosecution case.

Why did the Court find the allegations insufficient?

The Supreme Court held that the delayed and vague reference to “an uncle” created serious doubt about the prosecution’s version. The appellant’s name surfaced belatedly, without any specific role or conduct being attributed to him.

Relying on its earlier judgments in Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) and Sharif Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the Court reiterated that mere threats, without intention to cause alarm, do not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

Is intention necessary for criminal intimidation?

Yes. The Court emphasised that intention to cause alarm is the core ingredient of criminal intimidation. Prosecution under Section 506 IPC requires a clear and deliberate intention to alarm the victim, irrespective of whether the victim was actually alarmed.

“Even otherwise, mere expression of words, without any intention to cause alarm, cannot amount to criminal intimidation,” the Bench held.

Did the Court consider the appellant’s professional role?

The Supreme Court also noted that the appellant was a lawyer and observed that the mere presence of a lawyer, while discharging professional duties such as giving advice or suggestions, cannot by itself amount to intimidation. In the present case, no foundational facts were placed on record to show any conduct that could attract criminal liability.

What was the final ruling?

The Court held that vague allegations unsupported by prima facie cogent evidence cannot disclose an offence under Section 506 IPC. In the absence of material establishing intent to cause alarm, continuation of prosecution against the appellant would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant alone. It clarified that the proceedings against the remaining accused would continue before the jurisdictional trial court in accordance with law.

Case Title: Beri Manoj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale

Date of Judgment: January 2026