Mere Mention of 'Uncle' Insufficient to Prosecute Under Section 506 IPC: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Based on Vague 164 CrPC Statement

“Improved Statements Without Cogent Evidence Cannot Set Criminal Law in Motion” – In a significant judgment Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Beri Manoj, an advocate, in a sexual offence case, where he was implicated solely on the basis of a belated and vague allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that “mere reference to an ‘uncle’ in an improved statement made under Section 164 CrPC is not enough to prosecute a person for criminal intimidation” unless intention to cause alarm is prima facie evident.

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale, while allowing Criminal Appeal, emphasized that “criminal law cannot be used as a tool to harass individuals, especially professionals, without foundational facts and cogent evidence”.

“Improvement Made After 7 Days – Appellant’s Name Surfaces Suddenly Without Basis”

The prosecution’s case revolved around an FIR registered in 2022 involving charges of sexual assault (Section 376 IPC) and offences under the POCSO Act against other accused individuals. Initially, the prosecutrix made no allegations against the appellant when her Section 161 CrPC statement was recorded. However, seven days later, in a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she introduced a fresh claim that the appellant’s relatives, described as “uncle, father and two aunts of the main accused”, allegedly threatened her with dire consequences if she did not support the main accused.

Critically, the Supreme Court noted that:

“The prosecutrix improved her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC alleging that ‘two aunts and an uncle threatened’ her — a clear improvement from her earlier 161 CrPC statement.”

“This contradiction in timing of events creates a serious doubt in the prosecution’s version... the appellant’s name suddenly surfaced after seven days through a vague reference to ‘an uncle’, thereby further weakening the prosecution’s case.”

“No Intention to Cause Alarm Alleged — Threatening Words Alone Don’t Constitute Criminal Intimidation”

The Court referred to its earlier rulings in Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P., (2025) 2 SCC 604 and Sharif Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2024) 14 SCC 122, reiterating that the essential ingredient under Section 506 IPC is the intent to cause alarm, and not merely the use of threatening words.

The bench observed:

“Mere expression of words, without any intention to cause alarm, cannot amount to criminal intimidation... vague allegations unsupported by prima facie cogent evidence cannot constitute offence under Section 506 IPC.”

The judgment clarified that it is the intention, not the effect, which is legally determinative:

“Prosecution of a person for criminal intimidation requires clear intention to cause alarm, irrespective of whether the victim was alarmed or not.”

“Criminal Process Cannot Be Set in Motion to Harass Professionals – No Allegation of Any Overt Act by Appellant”

Importantly, the Court also noted that the appellant, an advocate by profession, was not alleged to have committed any direct act of threat or intimidation, nor was there any evidence suggesting he went beyond his professional duties:

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

The bench highlighted that criminal liability cannot be fastened on professionals without “foundational facts being established”. In this case, no overt act was attributed to the appellant, and his name surfaced only by inference through a vague familial association, not by direct accusation.

“Where Allegations Are Vague and Do Not Disclose a Prima Facie Offence, Appellate Court Must Intervene”

The Supreme Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant would amount to abuse of the process of law, invoking its inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice.

“We are of the considered view that the contentions urged and grounds pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellant deserve to be accepted.”

Allowing the appeal, the Court quashed the proceedings only with respect to the appellant, while allowing the prosecution to proceed against other accused before the jurisdictional trial court.

Proceedings Quashed – Supreme Court Reiterates the High Threshold for Criminal Intimidation

The Court concluded:

“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.”

Date of Decision: 20 January 2026