The Delhi High Court was hearing a plea of a woman and her family challenging acquittal of three lawyers in criminal intimidation case. (AI-generated Image)The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea of a woman and her family members, upholding the trial court’s decision to acquit three advocates in a grievous hurt and criminal intimidation case, following a 2010 altercation at the Tis Hazari Courts.Justice Neena Bansal was dealing with a plea of a woman, her father, and her brother challenging the trial court order to acquit the three men accused of abusing and beating the petitioners during the court strike.“The sole allegation against the respondent is that he told the complainant that ‘if she came again in the court, she would not be spared.’ This statement does not indicate what injury to her person, reputation or property was contemplated, nor is there any material to show that it in fact, caused such alarm as to overbear her will or to deter her from pursuing her legal remedies,” the court said on May 5.The order continued that it is, at best, a vague and unspecific outburst in the course of an altercation in the court premises. Justice Neena Krishna BansalJustice Bansal clarified that it can be concluded that such an indeterminate remark cannot be elevated to a criminally intimidatory threat within the meaning of Sections 503 and the consequent acquittal for the offence under 506 IPC.Also Read | ‘Begging for grace’: Bar council writes to CJI after Andhra Pradesh High Court judge orders 24-hour police custody for lawyer“It cannot be overlooked that the incident is of 2010, while today we are in 2026, and there is no Complaint of the Respondents having committed breach of the bond of peace and good conduct or have been involved in any such similar matter,” the court observed.Case of criminal intimidation at Tis Hazari CourtThe matter arose from a spontaneous fight on January 28, 2010, when the petitioners, a woman, her father, and her brother attended a matrimonial dispute hearing.Story continues below this adThe Bar was on strike on that day, and the matter was adjourned to February 2010. Soon after attending the court proceeding, as the petitioners came out of the courtroom, the respondents, including Rohit Nagpal, an associate of the petitioners’ husbands, had a verbal altercation with the petitioners and threatened that he would obtain a divorce for his friend, without paying any alimony.The case was that the accused Rohit Nagpal, being a lawyer, took advantage of the strike, and he, along with his associate lawyers, including Arun Renu and Dilip Rana, abused and gave beatings to the father and brother of the woman.The petitioners made a complaint to the Police against the respondents, who were the Vice President and the Additional Secretary of the Bar Association of Delhi, respectively, at that time.In 2016, the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) convicted the respondents for the offences under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt)/341 (punishment for wrongful restraint)/34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) IPC, while acquitting them for the offences under Sections 325 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt)/506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) IPC.Story continues below this adThe petitioners had challenged the accused-respondents’ acquittal under Section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Court’s findingsAccording to the prosecution, an incident of a fight and an altercation took place in January, 2010, between the petitioners and the respondents while they all had come to attend a matrimonial case at about 10:45 AM.The cross FIRs were registered. Regarding the charges of Section 506 IPC against Rohit Nagpal, it was observed that the threat allegedly extended to the Complainant was, “if she came again in the court, she is in the court again, she would not be spared.”Reliance was placed on Amitabh Ahar’s judgment to conclude that the alleged threat did not constitute an offence under Section 506 IPC, and the respondent Rohit Nagpal was accordingly acquitted under Section 506 IPC.The Additional Session Judge (ASJ) considered the challenge to the acquittal under Sections 325/34 IPC.It was held that the father of the woman, while claiming that he had suffered a fracture of his finger, did not state who had caused the fracture.From the appreciation of the evidence by the MM and confirmed by the learned ASJ, it emerges that while the MLCs were prepared by Dr Ajay Bansal and Dr Vishwakarma, these two Doctors were not available in the hospital, and the Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) had merely been exhibited by the record clerk.Also Read | Supreme Court refuses to shield lawyer after ‘unfounded allegations’ against Bombay High Court judgeA meaningful reading of the Supreme Court decisions makes it clear that vague, general or indeterminate remarks, or expressions of anger or displeasure in the heat of the moment, which neither specify the nature of the injury threatened nor are shown to have actually caused alarm or coerced the complainant into altering her lawful conduct, fall short of the statutory threshold for criminal intimidation under Sections 503/506 IPC.Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd