The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the acquittal of three advocates in a 2010 altercation inside the Tis Hazari Courts complex, holding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove grievous injury and criminal intimidation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also refused to interfere with the sentence already awarded by the trial court, which had released the accused on probation after convicting them under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on January 28, 2010, when petitioner Monika Aggarwal, along with her father Krishan Goel and brother Chetan Goel, had visited Tis Hazari Courts in connection with a matrimonial dispute. According to the petitioners, a verbal altercation took place outside the courtroom with Rohit Nagpal, a friend of Monika’s husband.
The complaint alleged that Nagpal and two other advocates assaulted Krishan Goel and Chetan Goel during the confrontation. A cross-FIR was also registered against the petitioners, though that case later ended in a cancellation report.
During trial, the magistrate court convicted the accused only for simple hurt and wrongful restraint under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, while acquitting them of charges under Section 325 IPC (grievous hurt) and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation). The accused were released on probation in 2017.
Court Examines Medical Evidence
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the medical evidence clearly established a fracture injury suffered by Krishan Goel and that the accused should have been convicted under Section 325 IPC.
However, the court noted that the doctors who had originally prepared the medical records were never examined during trial. The medical documents were instead produced through a record clerk.
“The record clerk may prove the preparation of the MLC, but is not competent to prove its contents,” the court observed while discussing the evidentiary value of the medical documents.
The High Court also pointed out that the X-ray reports and films were brought on record nearly five years later and were not filed with the original charge sheet. The radiologist who prepared those records was also not examined.
Because of these gaps, the court agreed with the trial court and appellate court that the prosecution had failed to conclusively establish grievous injury required for Section 325 IPC.
Findings on Criminal Intimidation Charge
The petitioners further challenged the acquittal under Section 506 IPC, relying on allegations that Rohit Nagpal had threatened the complainant by saying she “would not be spared” if she returned to court.
Rejecting the argument, the High Court held that vague or general statements made during a heated altercation do not automatically amount to criminal intimidation.
The bench observed,
“Such an indeterminate remark cannot be elevated to a criminally intimidatory threat within the meaning of Sections 503 and 506 IPC.”
The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions explaining that prosecution must show a clear intention to cause alarm or compel a person to act against their legal rights.
Court Refuses to Interfere With Sentence
On the issue of sentence, the High Court found no reason to disturb the probation granted to the accused advocates.
The court noted that the incident occurred in 2010 during a spontaneous clash arising out of a matrimonial dispute and that there had been no complaint of similar conduct in the years since.
Concluding that there was “no infirmity” in either the acquittal or the sentence order, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Monika Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2275/2017
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decision Date: May 5, 2026
