In a significant ruling aimed at protecting the professional sanctity of the legal fraternity, the Supreme Court of India has held that a lawyer cannot be prosecuted for criminal intimidation merely for giving advice or suggestions to a client. The Court observed that the "mere presence" of an advocate while discharging professional duties does not satisfy the legal requirements of an offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale quashed the criminal proceedings against an advocate who had been accused of threatening a victim in a sensitive sexual offence case.

“The mere presence of a lawyer in his capacity of discharging professional duty of either giving advice or suggestion cannot amount to intimidation,” the Court observed.

The case originated from an FIR registered in 2022 involving serious allegations of sexual assault under the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. While the main allegations were directed at other individuals, the appellant—a practicing advocate and the uncle of the primary accused—was later added as Accused No. 5.

The prosecution’s case against the advocate rested solely on a statement made by the victim (prosecutrix) under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In this statement, recorded eight days after the incident, the victim alleged that the advocate, along with two aunts of the main accused, had threatened her to give false testimony in favor of the accused.

However, the advocate challenged the proceedings, arguing that his name was an afterthought and that he was merely acting in his professional capacity. When the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash the case, terming it a "triable issue," the advocate moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court closely scrutinized the timing and consistency of the victim’s allegations. It noted a glaring discrepancy between the victim's initial statement to the police (Section 161 CrPC) and her subsequent statement before a Magistrate (Section 164 CrPC).

The Bench pointed out:

In the first statement (Section 161), the victim mentioned going to the advocate's house but did not mention any threat or intimidation.
The allegation of a death threat surfaced for the first time seven days later in the Section 164 statement.

The Court remarked that the advocate’s name "suddenly surfaced" after a week of silence. It held that such "vague allegations," which appear to be an improvement over the initial version, are insufficient in law to sustain a criminal prosecution.

A major highlight of this judgment is the Court’s clarification on Section 506 of the IPC (Criminal Intimidation). Relying on its previous landmark rulings in Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) and Sharif Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the Bench reiterated that "mere threats" are not enough to constitute a crime.

For a threat to be considered "criminal intimidation," there must be:

A clear intention to cause alarm: The person making the threat must specifically intend to frighten the victim.
More than just words: A mere expression of words, without the intent to actually cause alarm or force someone to do something they aren't legally bound to do, does not attract Section 506.

The Court emphasized that it does not matter whether the victim was actually alarmed; what matters is the intention of the person uttering the words. In this case, the Court found that the "foundational facts" required to prove such intent were completely missing.

The ruling serves as a vital shield for lawyers who often find themselves caught in the crossfire of their clients' legal battles. The Court recognized that an advocate's role involves meeting parties and offering suggestions. If the mere presence of a lawyer during such professional interactions is treated as "intimidation," it would severely hamper the ability of legal professionals to perform their duties.

The Bench concluded that continuing the prosecution against the advocate based on a vague reference to "an uncle" and inconsistent statements would be an "abuse of the process of law."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal case against the advocate (Beri Manoj). However, the Court clarified that the trial against the other accused persons in the sexual assault and POCSO case would continue as per the law.

Case Title: Beri Manoj v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 92
Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale