Delhi HC clears lawyers in 16-year-old Tis Hazari brawl, says ‘vague outburst’ not criminal threat

The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of three lawyers in a 16-year-old grievous hurt and criminal intimidation case linked to a clash at the Tis Hazari Courts, ruling that a “vague and unspecific outburst” made during the altercation did not qualify as a criminal threat.

Justice Neena Bansal dismissed a plea filed by a woman, her father and brother challenging the trial court’s decision to acquit the advocates accused of abusing and assaulting them during a lawyers’ strike in 2010.

In its May 5 order, the court observed that the statement allegedly made by one of the accused — “if she came again in the court, she would not be spared” — failed to specify any threat to the complainant’s person, reputation or property.

“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,” the court said.

The High Court added that there was no evidence to show the remark caused sufficient alarm or prevented the complainant from pursuing legal remedies. It described the statement as, “at best, a vague and unspecific outburst in the course of an altercation in the court premises.”

Justice Bansal further held that such an indeterminate remark could not be treated as criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court also noted that no complaint had been filed against the respondents for any similar misconduct since the 2010 incident.

The case stemmed from an altercation on January 28, 2010, when the petitioners attended a matrimonial dispute hearing at Tis Hazari Courts. As the Bar was on strike that day, the matter was adjourned to February 2010.

According to the complainants, the dispute escalated outside the courtroom when advocate Rohit Nagpal, allegedly associated with the woman’s husband, got into a verbal argument with them and claimed he would secure a divorce for his friend without paying alimony.

The petitioners alleged that Nagpal, along with advocates Arun Renu and Dilip Rana, abused and assaulted the woman’s father and brother, taking advantage of the strike situation inside the court complex.

A complaint was later filed with police against the accused, who at the time held positions in the Delhi Bar Association as Vice President and Additional Secretary.

In 2016, a Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the accused under Sections 323, 341 and 34 IPC relating to voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and common intention. However, they were acquitted of charges under Sections 325 and 506 IPC dealing with grievous hurt and criminal intimidation.

The petitioners subsequently challenged the acquittal under Section 325 IPC, arguing that grievous injuries had been caused during the assault.

The High Court, however, found gaps in the prosecution’s evidence. It noted that while the woman’s father claimed he had suffered a finger fracture, he did not identify who caused the injury.

The court also pointed out deficiencies in the medical evidence, observing that the doctors who prepared the Medical Legal Certificates (MLCs) were unavailable during the trial, and the documents were only formally exhibited through a record clerk.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that general or emotionally charged remarks made “in the heat of the moment” do not automatically amount to criminal intimidation unless they clearly convey a specific threat and are shown to have caused real alarm or coercion.