CRL.P/4469/2024 of SRI V KIRAN Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 15 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the proceedings in CC No.554 of 2025 (CC No.22609 of 2022),

HC-KAR

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri G M Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: An incident that happens on 04.04.2022 is said to have triggered registration of the crime in Crime No.61 of 2022 for the aforesaid offences. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner. The filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the parties to the lis are before the Civil Court in OS No.25465 of 2020, which is pending adjudication before the concerned Court. On the score of not getting any relief before the Civil Court, the criminal law is set into motion two years after the registration of the civil suit. Learned counsel submits

HC-KAR

none of the ingredients that are necessary to be proved for the offences so alleged are even present, in the case at hand.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, would vehemently refute the submission by contending that the police after investigation have filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the petitioner must come out clean in a full blown trial. The complainant is no more. Therefore, the State has made its submission in light of the charge sheet being filed by the police before the concerned Court.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsels and have perused the material on record.

7. The aforesaid narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. The entire issue gets triggered by registration of the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
ೕಮ ಾತ ೋಂ ೇ .ಾಮಚಂದ, ವಯಸು 82 ವಷ, ಾಸ ಮೆ ನಂ.27/ಎ, 1ೇ ಹಂತ, 3ೇ ಮುಖ!ರೆ#, ಮ$ಾಗಣಪ ನಗರ, (ೆಂಗಳ*ರು-560010, +ಾ : ,ದ-ಯ., ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA: 9686444412 / 7259202135

HC-KAR

ಾನು /ೕೆ 01ದ 23ಾಸದ-4 ನನ5 ಸ6ಂತ 78ಯ ಮಗ ಮೂ ರವರ ಮೆಯ-4 ಾಸಾ9ರು:ೆ#ೕೆ.

ನನ;ೆ 3 ಜನ ಗಂಡು ಮಕ?ಳ@ ಒಬC $ೆಣುD ಮಗಳ@ ಇರು:ಾ#3ೆ ನನ5 ಗಂಡನ ಮರಣದ ನಂತರ ಮೆಯ ಆ1# 2Gಾರಾ9 ಾನು ಮತು# ನನ5 78ಯ ಮಗ ಮೂ ರವರು ನನ5 ಇH5ತೇ ಮಕ?3ಾದ 1) ಾಸು 2) ೆಂಕIೇಶ ಮತು# 3) ಲ-ತ ರವರು 2ರುದL 12M ಾ!Nಾಲಯದ-4 3 ವಷOಂದ ೇP 2GಾರQೆಯ-4ದುR ಈ ಬ;ೆT ಮೆಯ-4 ಹಲಾರು (ಾ8 ಗಾIೆಗಳ@ ನUೆOರುತ#Vೆ, Oಾಂಕ:03.04.2022 ರಂದು ಾ ಸುWಾರು 8 ಗಂIೆ ಸಮಯದ-4 ನನ5 ಗಂಡನ XೕIೋ;ೆ ೈ $ಾಕಲು $ೋVಾಗ ಾಸು ರವರ ಮಗ (,ಮZಗ) [ರ\ ಇತನು ನನ5ನು5 ಏಕಏ[ೕ 7ದು ೊಂಡು Hೕನು ಸತ#ೇ ನಮZ ಆ1# ೕWಾನಾಗುವ^ದು ಎಂದು ಅಾ`ಯ ಶಬRಗ0ಂದ (ೈದು, (ೇದ8 ೆ $ಾ[

ೈಗ0ಂದ ನನ5 ಎVೆಯ aಾಗ ೆ? $ೊUೆದು ತbಣ ಾನು [ರುc ೊಂಡಗ ನನ5 ೊೆ aಾನುಮ ರವರು ಬಂVಾಗ ಅವರ /ೕೆಯೂ ಸಹ ಗಾIೆ Wಾರು:ಾ#ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ;ೆ ಎVೆ ೋವ^ +ಾ1# ಆ9ರುವ^ದ8ಂದ ಈಗ ಾUೆ ಆಸd:ೆಯ-4 ಒಳೋ9Nಾ9 c[:ೆ ಪUೆಯು#VೆRೕೆ.

ನಂತರ ಈ Oವಸ ೋವ^ ಕ/ ಆಗದ ಾರಣ Oಾಂಕ:04.04.2024 ರಂದು (ೆ¼ÀUÉÎ 8.30 ಗಂIೆ ಮ:ೆ ಾUೆ ಆಸ:ೆಯ-4 ಒಳೋ9Nಾ9 Vಾಖಾ9ರು:ೆ#ೕೆ $ಾಗೂ c[:ೆ ಪUೆಯು#ರು:ೆ#ೕೆ.

ಆ1# 2Gಾರದ-4 ನನ;ೆ ಮುಂVೆ :ೊಂದೆ ಆಗಬಹುVಾದ ಾರಣ ಇರುವ^ದ8ಂದ ನನ5 ,ಮZಗ [ರ\ ಈತನ 2ರುದL ಸೂಕ# ಾನೂನು 8ೕ:ಾ! ಕಮ ಜರು9ಸ(ೇ ೆಂದು ೋರು:ೆ#ೕೆ.

8. The police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.7 reads as follows:

HC-KAR

"ಬಸೇಶ6ರನಗರ 'f-ೕP ಸರºÀORನ ಮ$ಾಗಣಪನಗರದ ನಂ.27/ಎ. 1ೇ ಹಂತ, 6ೇ gೇP ರ-4 Oಾಂಕ;03/04/2022ರಂದು ಾ ಸುWಾರು 8.00ಗಂIೆಯ ಸಮಯದ-4 ಈ VೋhಾೋಪQಾಪತದ ಾi 1 gÀವರು ತನ5 ಗಂಡನ fೕIೋ;ೆ ೈ $ಾಕಲು $ೋVಾಗ. ಾಲಂ ನಂ. 04 ರ-4 ನಮೂO1ರುವ ಆೋkಯು – ಆ1#ಯ 2Gಾರಾ9 ಾi 1 ರವ8;ೆ KPÁKQ 7ದು ೊಂಡು Hೕನು ಸತ#ೆ ತಮZ ಆ1#. Wಾನಾಗುತ#Vೆ ಎಂದು ಆೋk ತನ5 ೈಗ0ಂದ ಎVೆ aಾಗ ೆ? $ೊUೆದು ಹೆ4 Wಾ, ಾWಾನ! ಸ6ರೂಪದ ;ಾಯ Wಾರುವ^ದು ಅಾಚ! ಶಬRಗ0ಂದ HಂO1 ೊೆ (ೆದ8 ೆ $ಾ[ರುವ^ದು ಇದುವೆ2;ೆ ನUೆ1ದ ತHlೆmಂದ ಮತು# ಾiVಾರರ $ೇ0 ೆಗ0ಂದ, ಸಂಗ7ಸಾದ ಾnಾopಾರಗ0ಂದ ದೃಢಪstದR8ಂದ ಆೋk 2ರುದL ಸ-4ಸಾದ Vೋhಾೋಪಣ ಪvÀæ."

9. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC, of which, the offence under Section 341 is the lone cognizable offence. For an offence to become punishable under Section 341, the ingredients as obtaining under Section 339 of the IPC is necessarily to be present.

10. Sections 341 and 339 of the IPC, read as follows: "341. Punishment for wrongful restraint - Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

339. Wrongful restraint - Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from

HC-KAR

proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person."

11. Section 339 of the IPC mandates that the victim must be stopped from moving in any direction by use of criminal force. It is not the allegation against the petitioner nor the summary of the charge sheet would speak of the said allegation of the complainant being stopped from moving anywhere by use of criminal force which would become an offence under Section 341 of the IPC. In that light, the offence under Section 341 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner.

12. The remaining offences are the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Necessary ingredients for the offence to become the one punishable under Sections 332, 504 and 506 need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.

HC-KAR

13. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Wajid Vs State of Uttar Pradesh1, has held as follows: “…. …. ….

Sections 503, 504 and 506 IPC

25. Chapter XXII IPC relates to criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance. Section 503 reads thus: “503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.

Illustration

A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.”

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951

HC-KAR

26. Section 504 reads thus:

“504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

27. Section 506 reads thus:

“506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

28. An offence under Section 503 has the following essentials:

(1) Threatening a person with any injury;

(i) to his person, reputation or property; or

HC-KAR

(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.

(2) The threat must be with intent;

(i) to cause alarm to that person; or

(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or

(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

29. Section 504 IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised self- control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender.

30. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504 IPC, the

HC-KAR

court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant.

31. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504 IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai [King Emperor v. ChunnibhaiDayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78] , a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:

“To constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds.”

(emphasis supplied)

HC-KAR

32. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.

33. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR.

34. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present.”

(Emphasis supplied)

14. The Apex Court formulates an issue as to what could become an offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506 and holds that unless those ingredients are met, the offence cannot be driven home for the prosecution to continue the trial.

HC-KAR

15. In the light of the present circumstance, akin to what the Apex Court decided in Mohd. Wajid (supra), permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in CC No.554 of 2025 (CC No.22609 of 2022) pending on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

BGN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30