Mere Threats Without Intention To Cause Alarm Not Criminal Intimidation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere threats given by the accused, without an intention to cause alarm, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation.

“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 to the Prosecutrix. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Delhi Police challenging the acquittal of a man in a case registered for the offences of criminal intimidation and POCSO Act.

The FIR, registered in 2013, alleged that the accused forcibly entered into the house of a 14 year old girl and sexually assaulted her. He was acquitted for the offence under Section 451 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

Dismissing the prosecution's appeal, the Court said that the absence of any physical struggle or damage to minor's clothing, combined with the shifting narratives, casted suspicion on the veracity of her allegations and raised grave suspicion regarding the authenticity and reliability of the incident as portrayed by her.

The Court noted that the trial court had observed that there were material contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the Prosecutrix and the statements made by her to the Police.

“However, while it has been the consistent testimony of the Prosecutrix that she opened the door on the knocking of the Respondent. She, therefore, herself had opened the door, which led the Respondent inside the house. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondent had committed house trespass. Therefore, no offence under Section 451 IPC has been proved by the Prosecution,” the Court said.

Furthermore, the Court noted that in every statement, the Prosecutrix had stated that she pushed the accused and ran out of the house and thereafter, stated that she was threatened by him.

It added that if the Prosecutrix had left immediately on being allegedly sexually assaulted by pushing away the accused, where was the occasion for him to extend threat to her.

Observing that the sequence of events, as narrated by the prosecutrix, did not clearly establish that the alleged threat was made with the intention to cause alarm, the Court said:

“Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. The Prosecution in the facts of the case has not been able to prove the offence under Section 506 IPC.”

Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. JAWAHAR SINGH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 822

Click here to read order