A police complaint is often the first step towards obtaining legal protection. However, the filing of a complaint does not necessarily prevent the alleged offender from continuing to threaten, intimidate, harass, or retaliate against the complainant. In some cases, the threat may become more serious precisely because the victim has approached law enforcement. The central question is therefore: what legal remedies are available when a person continues to threaten someone despite a pending police complaint? The complainant is not required to wait for the original complaint to conclude. A subsequent threat may constitute a separate criminal offence and may justify further police action, judicial intervention, preventive protection, and protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.The law must therefore balance two interests: protecting the complainant’s life, safety and legal rights while ensuring that criminal proceedings are based on credible evidence and proper procedure.

Importance and Relevance of the Topic

Threats made after a police complaint can undermine both individual safety and the administration of justice. A complainant may be pressured to withdraw the complaint, refuse to cooperate with investigators, alter evidence, or refrain from giving evidence. Threats may also escalate into physical violence or damage to property. The issue is therefore more than a private dispute. Intimidation can interfere with the criminal justice process itself. In Mahender Chawla v Union of India¹, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of protecting witnesses and persons assisting law enforcement and approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018²for implementation throughout India. Consequently, a pending complaint does not prevent a victim from reporting later threats or seeking appropriate protection.

Legal Issues Involved

The legal issues arising from this proposition include:

1. Whether a subsequent threat is a separate criminal offence: Does a threat made after the original police complaint independently satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS, even where the initial complaint remains pending?

2. Whether the threat is intended to interfere with legal proceedings: Is the alleged offender attempting to compel the complainant to withdraw the complaint, stop cooperating with police, alter evidence, or refrain from exercising a legal right?

3. What happens when the police fail to act: What statutory remedies are available where the police refuse to record the subsequent complaint, fail to investigate it, or do not adequately respond to the threat?

4. Whether preventive protection is justified: Can the complainant seek police protection where there is a credible and specific threat to life, personal safety, reputation or property, even before physical harm occurs?

5. Whether the complainant qualifies for witness protection: Where the threats arise because the person is cooperating with law enforcement or may provide evidence, can the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 be invoked?

6. Whether judicial intervention is necessary: When police authorities fail to respond adequately, can the complainant approach the Magistrate or seek appropriate constitutional or judicial relief?

The answers require consideration not only of the offence allegedly committed by the threatening person, but also of the State’s responsibility to respond to credible threats and prevent intimidation from obstructing the administration of justice.

• ¹ Mahender Chawla v Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615
  ² Ministry of Home Affairs (Government of India), Witness Protection Scheme 2018

Applicable Laws

A. Criminal Intimidation under Section 351 BNS

Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)³ criminalizes criminal intimidation. The offence occurs where a person threatens another with injury to their person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of someone in whom they are interested, intending to cause alarm or compel them to do something they are not legally bound to do, or refrain from something they are legally entitled to do. The provision also provides enhanced punishment for serious threats, including threats of death or grievous hurt, and addresses anonymous threats. Accordingly, a threat to force a complainant to withdraw a police complaint or stop cooperating with an investigation may fall within the scope of criminal intimidation, depending on the evidence and surrounding circumstances.

B. Reporting a Subsequent Threat and Police Inaction

Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) governs information relating to cognizable offences. If the police refuse to record the information, Section 173(4)⁴ allows the aggrieved person to send the substance of the information in writing to the Superintendent of Police. If the matter remains unresolved, Section 175(3) BNSS⁵ permits a Magistrate empowered under Section 210 to order an investigation after considering an application supported by an affidavit, making any necessary inquiry, and considering the police officer’s submissions. This provides judicial oversight where police authorities fail to act. The complainant should preserve relevant evidence, including messages, call records, screenshots, emails, CCTV footage, recordings where lawfully obtained, and witness details. The earlier complaint should also be identified to establish the connection between the original complaint and the subsequent intimidation.

• ³ The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 351.
  ⁴ The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, ss 173(1), 173(4).
  ⁵ The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 175(3).

C. Article 21 and Police Protection

Article 21 of the Constitution⁶ protects the right to life and personal liberty. Where a credible and specific threat is brought to the State’s attention, authorities may be required to consider reasonable protective measures. Protection is not automatically granted merely because a person alleges fear. Authorities must assess the seriousness and credibility of the threat. However, a preventative approach is justified where the evidence demonstrates a genuine risk; the State should not necessarily wait until a threat becomes physical violence.

D. Witness Protection Scheme, 2018

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018⁷ provides measures proportionate to the level of threat, including police protection, regular patrolling, protection of identity, emergency contacts and, where necessary, temporary or permanent relocation. In Mahender Chawla v Union of India⁸, the Supreme Court approved the Scheme and directed its implementation throughout India. The Court recognized that threats may affect a witness’s life, safety, reputation or property and declared the Scheme to have the force of law under Articles 141⁹and 142¹⁰until appropriate legislation is enacted. A complainant who is also a witness or is assisting the criminal justice process may therefore seek protection where the threat is connected to that participation.

Judicial Analysis

Landmark Judgment: Mahender Chawla v Union of India

Mahender Chawla v Union of India,¹¹is the leading authority on witness protection in India. The Supreme Court recognized that intimidation may prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigations and giving evidence. It therefore approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and directed its implementation throughout India. The decision is significant because it adopts a preventive approach. Protection is not limited to situations where physical violence has already occurred; threats to life, safety, reputation or property may justify protection depending on the level of risk. Waiting until harm occurs would undermine the purpose of preventive protection.

• ⁶ Constitution of India, art 21.
  ⁷ Ministry of Home Affairs (Government of India), Witness Protection Scheme 2018
  ⁸ Mahender Chawla v Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615.
  ⁹ Constitution of India, art 141.
  ¹⁰ Constitution of India, art 142.
  ¹¹ Mahender Chawla v Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615.

Recent Judgment: Simran Singh Sehgal v State of Maharashtra, 2025

In Simran Singh Sehgal v State of Maharashtra,¹²the Bombay High Court considered allegations of continuing harassment and intimidation despite several police complaints. The Court emphasized that where police authorities fail to register an FIR, the statutory remedy under Section 175(3) BNSS should ordinarily be pursued before the Magistrate. The Magistrate can direct investigation while ensuring that the statutory procedure is followed.

A further recent authority is S. Karthikeyan v Government of Tamil Nadu¹³, decided by the Madras High Court in January 2026. The Court held that there is no vested right to permanent police protection, but Article 21 requires the State to take reasonable protective measures where credible threats are brought to its attention. Authorities must therefore consider the current threat perception and provide a reasoned response.

These authorities demonstrate that courts may not automatically order a particular level of security, but they can require authorities to properly assess credible threats and comply with their constitutional and statutory responsibilities.

• ¹² Simran Singh Sehgal v State of Maharashtra 2025:BHC-AS:39913-DB.
  ¹³ Sahay Araj v State of Tamil Nadu, Crl OP (MD) Nos 12341 and 12893 of 2025 (Madras HC, 30 April 2026).

Reasoned Legal Opinion

In my view, a person threatened despite having a pending police complaint should not assume that the original complaint automatically protects them or covers later conduct. A subsequent threat should be reported immediately and separately, while explaining its connection to the original complaint. The complainant should preserve all evidence and submit a written complaint requesting investigation of the new conduct as possible criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS or any other applicable offence.

If the police fail to act, the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS¹⁴and, if necessary, the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.¹⁵Where there is a genuine risk to life or safety, a formal threat assessment and appropriate protection should also be requested. The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018¹⁶is especially relevant where threats arise because the individual is cooperating with law enforcement or acting as a witness.

However, protection must be based on credible facts rather than generalized fear. Authorities must distinguish between a genuine and specific threat and an unsupported allegation. At the same time, they should not wait for physical violence before taking reasonable preventive action. Article 21¹⁷ supports a proportionate response to credible threats. Therefore, the most legally sound approach is to treat the subsequent threat as a new legal event requiring immediate assessment, evidence preservation, and, where appropriate, separate criminal investigation and protective measures.

• ¹⁴ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 173(4).
  ¹⁵ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 175(3).
  ¹⁶ Ministry of Home Affairs (Government of India), Witness Protection Scheme 2018
  ¹⁷ Constitution of India, art 21.

Conclusion

A pending police complaint does not deprive a complainant of further legal remedies when threats continue. A subsequent threat may constitute a separate offence of criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS¹⁸. The complainant should preserve evidence and report the new conduct immediately. Where police authorities fail to act, Sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS¹⁹provide a structured mechanism for escalation to the Superintendent of Police and the Magistrate. Where there is a credible threat to life, safety, reputation or property, police protection and, where applicable, protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, may also be sought. The central principle is that access to justice should not expose complainants or witnesses to retaliation without protection. The State’s responsibility is therefore not merely to investigate offences after harm occurs, but, where credible threats are brought to its attention, to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent foreseeable harm.

• ¹⁸ Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 351.
  ¹⁹ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 173(4) and s 175(3).