In a shocking incident that unfolded inside the courtroom of the Dwarka District Courts in Delhi, a man convicted in a cheque dishonour case openly threatened the presiding judicial officer, even going so far as to warn her about her safety once she left the premises.
The incident, detailed in a court order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) Shivangi Mangla, highlighted an alarming breakdown of courtroom decorum and raised concerns over the safety of judicial officers.
According to the court’s order dated April 2, shortly after being convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act — a provision that deals with the offence of cheque dishonour — the accused lost control of his temper and directed a chilling threat toward Judge Mangla.
The convict reportedly told the judge, “Meet us outside, and we will see how you return home alive.”
The judge further recorded in her order that the situation in the courtroom quickly escalated, as the convict’s anger boiled over following the pronouncement of the guilty verdict.
The man, who was visibly agitated, not only lashed out verbally but also engaged in physical intimidation. Judge Mangla noted that he had an object in his hand, which he attempted to throw at her in what appeared to be an outburst of rage against the judgment.
According to the judicial order, after hearing the ruling that did not go in his favour, the accused “erupted with anger” in the open courtroom, openly questioning the judge on how such a verdict could be passed against him.
The judge highlighted in her written remarks that the convict went on to harass her both verbally and emotionally, using “unofficial Hindi language” filled with offensive remarks, including derogatory comments involving her mother.
Disturbingly, the harassment did not end there. The judge stated that both the convict and his legal counsel — identified as Athul Kumar — subjected her to continued mental and physical harassment, going so far as to pressure her to resign from her judicial post.
They also allegedly threatened that unless she reversed her decision and acquitted the accused, they would file a complaint against her and ensure her resignation was “forcibly arranged.”
Expressing deep concern over the gravity of the threats and harassment she endured, the judge ordered that the matter be referred to the National Commission for Women (NCW) so that appropriate action could be initiated against the convict for his misconduct and intimidation.
Additionally, the judge directed that a show cause notice be issued to the convict’s counsel, Athul Kumar, instructing him to submit a written explanation for his conduct during the proceedings.
She also raised the possibility of recommending the case to the Delhi High Court for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against him for his alleged misbehaviour in court.
In the sentencing phase, which concluded three days later on April 5, Judge Mangla handed down a punishment of 22 months of simple imprisonment to the convict. Along with the prison term, the court directed him to pay a fine of ₹6.65 lakh in connection with the dishonoured cheque case.
During the sentencing hearing, the convict’s counsel pleaded with the court to show leniency, citing the convict’s age and personal circumstances.
He informed the court that his client was a 63-year-old retired government school teacher and was burdened with the responsibility of supporting three unemployed sons.
Despite the request for compassion, the judge opted for a custodial sentence, citing the seriousness of the convict’s actions not only in committing the financial offence but also in openly intimidating a judicial officer, an act that strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law.
Judge Mangla also formally referred the entire matter, including the threats and misconduct reported on April 2, to the Principal District and Sessions Judge for South West District, Dwarka, for further escalation to the Delhi High Court, so that appropriate proceedings could be initiated on the larger issue of courtroom safety and judicial intimidation.
