INTRODUCTION
In its Judgment dated 20 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale in Beri Manoj v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14741 of 2025), has reaffirmed that the mere presence of an advocate or acts performed in the course of professional duty, including the rendering of legal advice, cannot by themselves amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby drawing a clear distinction between legitimate legal practice and criminal culpability while reinforcing the statutory safeguards governing the legal profession.
FACTUAL CONTEXT
The case arose from FIR No. 389/2022 registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein multiple accused were charged with serious offences under the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The Appellant before the Supreme Court, a practicing advocate, was arrayed as Accused No. 5 and the sole allegation against him pertained to criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
Notably:
• The initial statement of the Prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC contained no allegation of threat or intimidation by the Appellant.
• It was only after a delay of about seven days, in a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, that a vague assertion surfaced alleging that an “uncle” of the main Accused, along with two aunts, had threatened the Prosecutrix.
• No specific act, conduct or words attributable to the Advocate were disclosed.
CORE LEGAL ISSUE
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether an advocate can be subjected to criminal prosecution for criminal intimidation merely on the basis of a belated and vague allegation, when the alleged acts fall within the realm of professional engagement or advisory role and lack any demonstrable intention to cause alarm.
SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS
1. Criminal Intimidation Requires Clear Intention
The Court reiterated that criminal intimidation is not established by the mere use of words or presence at a place. Section 506 IPC requires a clear intention to cause alarm, which is the cornerstone of the offence.
The Bench emphasised that intention cannot be presumed, particularly when:
• the allegation is vague,
• the accused is introduced belatedly, and
• the prosecution material lacks consistency.
2. Professional Role of an Advocate Cannot Be Criminalised
In a significant observation, the Court held that:
The mere presence of a lawyer, in his capacity of discharging professional duties such as giving advice or suggestions, cannot amount to criminal intimidation.
The Court noted that legal professionals frequently interact with accused persons, witnesses and family members and such interaction, in itself, does not attract criminal culpability unless accompanied by coercion, threats or demonstrable mens rea.
In the absence of foundational facts showing intimidation, prosecuting an advocate would amount to criminalising professional conduct, which the law does not permit.
3. Vague Allegations Are Legally Insufficient
The Court was particularly critical of the vagueness of the allegation, where the Appellant’s role emerged only through a non-specific reference to an “uncle”, without clarity, corroboration or attribution of any threatening act.
It was held that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained on elastic and undefined allegations, especially when they surface as improvements over earlier statements.
4. Safeguard Against Abuse of Criminal Process
The Bench underscored that allowing prosecution of advocates on such flimsy material would open the floodgates for harassment through criminal litigation, thereby undermining the independence of the Bar.
The Court cautioned that criminal law must not be permitted to become a tool for intimidation against those discharging professional legal duties.
FINAL OUTCOME
Allowing the Appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the Advocate, holding that continuation of prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court clarified that proceedings against the remaining accused would continue independently.
Key Legal Principles Emanating from the Judgment
1) Professional acts of an advocate, including legal advice, do not constitute criminal intimidation in the absence of clear intent.
2) Intention to cause alarm is an indispensable ingredient of Section 506 IPC.
3) Vague and improved allegations cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution.
4) Courts must act as gatekeepers against misuse of criminal law to target legal professionals.
5) The independence and functioning of the legal profession must be protected from unwarranted criminal liability.
CONCLUSION
This Judgment draws a clear and necessary distinction between criminal conduct and professional legal engagement. By holding that mere presence or advice by an advocate cannot amount to criminal intimidation, the Supreme Court has reinforced both substantive criminal law principles and institutional safeguards for the Bar.
The decision serves as a timely reminder that criminal prosecution must rest on intent, clarity and cogent material; not suspicion, professional proximity, or belated allegations.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Understanding SARFAESI Act | Rights of Borrowers 2025, DRT, Supreme Court Judgments” can be viewed at the link below: