Karnataka High Court
Mr Ramanathan Ramaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8242
CRL.P No. 40 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024
CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 40 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3913 OF 2024
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3976 OF 2024
IN CRL.P No. 40/2024
BETWEEN:
MR. VISHAK G.
S/O JAYARAM G.K.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FLAT NO.R-702, ROHAN JHAROKA II,
KALYAMMANA AGARAH,
BELLANDURU, BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA-560 043.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY (BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
Location: High SRI. N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BANASWADI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY-560 102.
2. MR. NAGAVARMA PRABHU A.
S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA ANANTHAN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8242
CRL.P No. 40 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024
CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/AT FLAT NO.207,
ARJUN AURA APARTMENT,
97/4, 5TH CROSS, BILEKAHALLI,
OPP: BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. SIDDAPPAJI S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO: (I) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE
CRIMINAL CASE C.C. NO.51315/2021 REGISTERED BASED ON
CRIME NO.638/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE XI ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT,
BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A); (II) QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.51315/2021 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 447, 506 R/W 34 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (ANNEXURE 'A' AND 'D').
IN CRL.P NO. 3913/2024
BETWEEN:
MR. RAMANATHAN RAMASWAMY
S/O MR. RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: BALAJI MANOR,
D' COSTA LAYOUT, COOKE TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 033.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KIRAN B.Y., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8242
CRL.P No. 40 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024
CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BANASWADI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY-560 102.
2. NAGAVARMA PRABHU A.
S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA ANANTHAN,
FLAT NO.207,
ARJUN AURA APARTMENT,
97/4, 5TH CROSS, BILEKAHALLI,
OPP: BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. SIDDAPPAJI S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO: (I) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE
CRIMINAL CASE CC.NO.51315/2021 REGISTERED BASED ON
CRIME NO.638/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE XI ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT,
BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A); (II) QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.51315/2021 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 447, 506 R/W 34 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (ANNEXURE 'A' AND 'D').
IN CRL.P NO. 3976/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. SRILAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY
W/O NAGAVARMA PRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FLAT NO.R-702,
ROHAN JHAROKA II,
KEMPAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BELLANDURU, BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA-560 037.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:8242
CRL.P No. 40 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024
CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. MR. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE NERLIGE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
NO.159, 3RD CROSS,
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, 4TH BLOCK,
NANDHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA-560 096.
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
3. MRS. S. SUMITHRA
W/O NARAYANSAMY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
NO.159, 3RD CROSS,
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, 4TH BLOCK,
NANADHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA-560 096.
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
4. MRS. SRIVIDYA NARYANASWAMY N.K.
W/O MR. VISHAK G.,
AGEED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.R-702,
ROHAN JHAROKA II,
KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD,
YAMALURU, BELLANDUR,
BANGALORE-560 037.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BANASWADI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY-560 102.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:8242
CRL.P No. 40 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024
CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. NAGAVARMA PRABHU A.
S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA ANANTHAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FLAT NO.207,
ARJUN AURA APARTMENT,
97/4, 5TH CROSS, BILEKAHALLI,
OPP: BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. SIDDAPPAJI S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO: (I) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE
CRIMINAL CASE CC.NO.51315/2021 REGISTERED BASED ON
CRIME NO.638/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE XI ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT,
BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A); (II) QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.51315/2021 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 447, 506 R/W 34 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (ANNEXURE 'A' AND 'D').
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No.51315/2021 arising out of Crime No.638/2019 registered for the offences punishable under -6- NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR Sections 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel, Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, appearing for the petitioners in Crl. P Nos.40/2024 and 3976/2024 and learned counsel, Sri. Kiran B.Y., appearing for the petitioner in Crl. P No.3913/2024.
3. The proxy counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 seeks time, yet again.
4. This Court on 06.02.2026, owing to the fact that the respondents had gone on seeking adjournment for two years, had passed the following Order:
"Heard the learned Senior counsel, Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, appearing for the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has gone on seeking adjournment after adjournment for the last 3 years.
Therefore, as a last chance, list these matters on 11.02.2026 in 'Admission'.
In the event learned counsel appearing for the respondents would not make submissions, these petitions would be disposed on hearing the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.
Interim order granted earlier, if subsisting in any of these cases, is extended till the next date of hearing."-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR Even today, a proxy counsel is put forth to seek an adjournment in the matters. Therefore, in the light of the earlier order being a conditional one, the matters are heard.
5. The learned Senior counsel, Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, appearing for the petitioners in Crl. P Nos.40/2024 and 3976/2024 submits that qua accused No.7, this Court had quashed the proceedings in terms of its order dated 01.09.2023. The very complainant had tossed the said order before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has rejected the Special Leave Petition so filed by the complainant against the order of this Court dated 01.09.2023. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6. All the allegations of criminal trespass and criminal intimidation punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC was against accused No.7, whose petition this Court has accepted and quashed the proceedings.
5.1. The learned Senior counsel would further take this Court through the complaint to demonstrate that these petitioners were not even present on the alleged date of the incident, as it was the CCTV footage that led the accused No.7 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR to be drawn into the web of crime. The present crime is registered only to wreak vengeance against these petitioners by the complainant. Accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 were not even present at the alleged scene of crime. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the wife and her parents, who did reside in the house. The learned Senior counsel submits that the wife and her parents, who were residing in the matrimonial home of the wife, cannot be alleged of trespassing into their own house.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would, however, submit that the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full long trial.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The facts that are necessary for consideration of the lis are all captured in the order passed by this Court on 01.09.2023 in Crl.P No.3531/2021. Therefore, it would suffice if the facts narrated therein are paraphrased to the subject -9- NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR order. The order along with the facts and the reasoning in Crl.P. No.3531/2021 reads as follows:
"The petitioner/accused No.7 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.51315 of 2021 which arose out of Crime No.638 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are said to know each other for close to 15 years. The families of both the persons are said to be close friends. It is averred that in the year 2013 the 2nd respondent after his marriage had shifted to the house of the petitioner at Bangalore and had been a tenant from 2013 to 2018. It is again averred that they had cordial relationship between themselves. It appears that during the year 2018 the relationship between the complainant and his wife had floundered. The wife had registered certain cases against the 2nd respondent/husband. The first of the cases sought to be registered was on 20-05-2019 by the wife of the 2nd respondent against him which ends up in issuance of non- cognizable report in N.C.R.No.431 of 2019 asking the parties to settle the dispute. After the said attempt to register the crime against him, the 2nd respondent files M.C.No.3274 of 2019 seeking dissolution of marriage. After filing of matrimonial case, the 2nd respondent then files a complaint before the Banaswadi Police contending that there has been theft of his household articles, property, original documents and other things. The averment is that in this case as well non-cognizable report was registered in N.C.R.No.577 of 2019 with the settlement that the accused therein had to return the articles.
3. It appears that the accused had handed over the documents related to the house of the complainant at Chennai and the allegation is that all the things were not returned. Based upon this, after about three months, a private complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent against seven accused for offences punishable under Sections 427, 506, 378, 447 r/w 34 of the IPC. The
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR petitioner is arrayed as accused No.7. The learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation which results in registration of FIR in Crime No.638 of 2019 for the afore-quoted offences. The registration of the crime leads to investigation and the investigation results in filing of a charge sheet by the Police not for all the offences so alleged but for offences punishable under Sections 447, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. Therefore, the consideration in the case at hand would be qua filing of the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner was maintained as accused No.7 in the charge sheet as well. Filing of the charge sheet is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Heard Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner, Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R.M. Annamalai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
5. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner would vehemently contend that the 2nd respondent has dispute with his wife. He suspected that the petitioner is the reason for the said dispute. It is his suspicion that the petitioner is his wife's paramour and, therefore, seeks to register a complaint on a particular day that articles in the house which was tenanted by the 2nd respondent from the hands of the petitioner had been stolen in connivance with his wife. Therefore, she would submit that the 2nd respondent is seeking to wreck vengeance as a counter blast. Suspicion that is generated is with regard to the relationship between the wife of the 2nd respondent and the petitioner. She would further contend that the offence under Section 447 or Section 506 of the IPC is not even present in the complaint, as the house equally belongs to the wife of the complainant as it belongs to the complainant. Therefore, there cannot be a trespass into her own house. The complaint though narrates several articles missing as described in the complaint, none can be laid against the petitioner. Certain photographs captured on the CCTV are sought to be produced which are neither here nor there as the petitioner had visited the house with real concern with the sister of the wife of the complainant. Dispute between the husband and the wife is now sought to be projected as criminal trespass and intimidation is the emphatic
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR submission of the learned senior counsel. She would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. The learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent/ complainant would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the case is shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact and, therefore, it is a matter of trial for the truth to come out viz., whether the paramour was involved in the alleged episode of crime or not? It is his submission that CCTV footages clearly pin at the petitioner being there and holding the wife of the 2nd respondent in executing which has become the allegation of criminal trespass and stealing of articles. Though the Police have given up the offence of theft as was alleged at the time of registration of crime, the prosecution has filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. for further investigation of the matter. He would, therefore, contend that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean as undoubtedly the petitioner has indulged in the offence as is alleged against him in the FIR, if not in the charge sheet.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. To consider the issue on its merit, it is necessary to notice the squabble between the husband and the wife going to enormous proportion. It is the averment that the petitioner, family of the petitioner, complainant and his family were all close friends and the complainant and his wife were staying in the house owned by the petitioner. In view of the litigations between the husband and the wife or the family members contending that friends of the family members have supported the wife of the 2nd respondent resulting in several proceedings being instituted, I deem it appropriate to notice all of them. The first of the proceedings instituted was in M.C.No.3274 of 2019 by the 2nd respondent against his wife seeking dissolution of marriage. The next is the original suit in O.S.No.291 of 2019 to declare the 2nd respondent/complainant to be the sole and absolute owner of a particular property which is jointly purchased by the husband and the wife. The third proceeding is under the Guardians and Wards
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR Act, 1890 in G & WC 243 of 2019 seeking custody of minor daughter. The fourth is O.S.No.6771 of 2019, a recovery suit instituted by the 2nd respondent against the sister of his wife. The fifth is O.S.No.6762 of 2019, again a recovery suit filed by the complainant against parents of his wife. Another complaint is registered which has become C.C.No.51829 of 2021 alleging criminal defamation against the petitioner herein. The sixth of the proceedings is a complaint registered before a Child Welfare Committee on 31-07-2021 seeking protection of the child alleging that his wife is in illicit relationship with another person one Ramanathan Ramaswamy. Therefore, there is serious dispute with regard to several things between the 2nd respondent/husband and the wife.
9. After registration of all the aforesaid cases, one complaint comes to be registered on 16-07- 2019 alleging that the petitioner had connived with the complainant's wife to steal and burglar the house of the complainant. It is further averred that this also ended in registration of a non-cognizable report as the other accused therein had agreed to return the articles. After the said date comes the impugned private complaint. Since the entire issue now sprung from the private complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the same for the purpose of quick reference. It reads as follows:
"COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE The complainant above named most respectfully submits as follows:-
1. The address of the complainant for the purpose of service of notice, summons and all processes of this Hon'ble Court is as shown in the cause title hereinabove. The complainant can also be served through his Advocates Mr. R.M. Annamalai and Mr. Siddappaji. S, having office at: No.8, Law Chambers, High Court, Madurai-625 023.
2. The address of the Accused No.1 to Accused No.7 for the above said purpose of service of notices and summons etc., from this
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR Hon'ble Court is as shown in the cause title above.
3. The Complainant submits that, the Complainant is a husband of the Accused No.1, Son-in-law of Accused No.2 and Accused No.3, Brother-in-law of Accused No.4, Co-Brother of Accused No.5 and Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 are the Boy Friend of Accused No.1.
4. The Complainant submits that, the Complainant and Accused No.1 were living in Flat No.403, Aswath Enclave, 9th E Main, HRBR Layout, 1st Block, Bangalore-560 043, being a husband the Complainant alone provided all the household articles such as Samsung T.V., Refrigerator, Air Conditioner, IFB Washing Machine, Samsung Sound Bar, LG Microwave, Sofa, King size Cot, Small size Cots, mattress, study table, side table, chest of Drawers, Airtel broad connection, ACT broadband connection, Dining Table with Chairs, Gas Stove with HP Gas Cylinder etc., and the Complainant only paid for the same. It is further submitted that, the Complainant kept his belongings such as gold neck chain approximately 40 Grms, 110 US Dollars, since the Complainant traveling frequently to abroad for his employer business meetings etc., and Property related Original Documents in the Almirah.
5. The Complainant submits that, on 20th May 2019 the Accused No.1 has lodged the false Complaint against the Complainant vide NCR No.431/2019,during the inquiry the Officials of the Banaswadi Police Station have found that the Complainant never committed any offences as alleged in the said Complaint and advised both the Complainant and Accused No.1 to stay separately for one month, if it is possible to reunion both you can stay together at the same place, otherwise better to approach the family court for justice.
6. The Complainant submits that, as per the advice of the Officials of the Banaswadi Police Station the Complainant started living separately but the Flat Keys are with Accused No.1 and her family members, since the Accused No.1 requested the Officials of the Banaswadi Police Station that she wants to take her dresses and others which were essential for
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR daily needs, the Complainant unable bear the cruelty and others of the Accused No.1, thus in the meanwhile the Complainant approached the Hon'ble Family Court Judge at Bangalore, filed the Divorce Petition vide M.C.No.3274 of 2019 seeking dissolution of the marriage dated 29- 04-2007 as required under the law. The Hon'ble 1st Additional Family Court Judge at Bangalore issued the summons to the Accused No.1 and same was duly served to the Accused No.1 for her appearance.
7. The Complainant submits that, immediately after service of the summons issued by the Hon'ble 1st Additional Family Court Judge at Bangalore in M.C.No.3274 of 2019 the Accused No.1 to Accused No.7 with common intention, unauthorisedly entered the Flat No.403 , Aswath Enclave, 9th E Main, HRBR Layout 1st Block, Bangalore-560 043 and stolen household articles of Samsung T.V. Refrigerator, Air conditioner, IFB Washing Machine, Samsung Sound Bar, LG Microwave, Sofa, Kind size Cot, Small size Cots, mattress, study table, side table, chest of drawers, dining table with chairs, Gas Stove, one gold neck chain approximately 40 Grms., 110 US Dollars, Property related Original Documents and others in the Almirah etc.,
8. The Complainant further submits that, the Complainant lodged the Complaint before the Banasawadi Police Station for theft of his household articles, property original documents and others in 07-07-2019, the Officials of the Banaswadi Police Station registered the said complaint vide NCR No.577/2019 and called for the inquiry, during the inquiry the Accused have agreed to return the Complainant's belongings, on 16-07-2019 the said Accused have handed over the Chennai House related original documents to the Complainant before the Banaswadi Police Station and the Accused No.1 from her cell phone number:+91 9886311470 has informed to the Complainant that she will come with the documents on 25.07.2019 at 7 p.m. to the Banasawadi Police Station and handover the few things and failed to return the entire as mentioned in the Complaint dated 07- 07-2019.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. The Complainant further submits that, the Complainant requested the Accused to return all his belongings but they refused, hence it is clear that "Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft". It is further submitted that, the Accused have caused life threat to the Complainant stating that "if you are insisting the Police to file an F.I.R. we will kill you" etc.
10. The Complainant further submits that, Complainant has filed the Complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, No.1, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 and requested to initiate the legal proceedings against the Accused but the Officials of the Commissioner of Police have failed to register the case against the Accused, the Accused No.1 to Accused No.7 are powerful persons and they have got the support of anti-social elements including hired Goondas, under these circumstances, the Complainant left with no other alternative except to approach this Hon'ble Court to initiate the legal proceedings against the Accused No.1 to Accused No.7. It is further submitted that the Complainant craves liberty to produce any other documents at the time of Investigations/at the time of trial before this Hon'ble Court.
11. The Complainant further submits that, the Accused No.1 to Accused No.7 have intentionally committed an offences punishable under Section 378, 427, 447, 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
12. The Complainant further submits that, the incidents took place at Flat No.403, Aswath Enclave, 9th E Main, HRBR Layout 1st Block, Bangalore-560043 within the Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court i.e., within the limits of Banaswadi Police Station, hence this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the Complaint on merits.
WHEREFORE, the Complainant above named respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to refer the above Complaint to the Jurisdictional Police Inspector/Station House
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR Officer, Banaswadi Police Station, Bangalore under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code through Investigation in the matter and registering the F.I.R. against the Accused No.1 to Accused No.7 in accordance with law, to meet the ends of justice."
The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.7.
10. The crux of the allegation is that Sumsung Television, Refrigerator, Air Conditioner, IFB Washing Machine, HP Gas Cylinder etc. have all been stolen from the house of the complainant. A perusal at the entire complaint would indicate that it is so vague as even the date of the incident is not narrated even though it is a well drafted legal document. What is the meaning of theft and what is the meaning of criminal intimidation is all indicated therein along with offences under the IPC. On this well drafted thought of complaint, reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is sought. The learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation. The reference becomes a crime in Crime No.638 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences. The offences then were under Section 427 - mischief, Section 506 - criminal intimidation, Section 378 - theft and Section 447 - criminal trespass. The Police conduct investigation and find it hard to find any ingredients of Section 378 and therefore, filed a charge sheet restricting the offence to criminal trespass and criminal intimidation corresponding to offences punishable under Sections 447, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. The complainant then files an application seeking further investigation into the matter which was pending consideration. It is at that juncture this Court interjected all further proceedings before the concerned Court pursuant to the petitioner filing the subject petition invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The 2nd respondent has filed statement of objections and produced photographs of the petitioner being in his house on 22- 05-2019 and 18-06-2019 and the house being ransacked among others to contend that it does become an offence under Section 447 of the IPC. The house, in fact, was also in the custody of the wife of the complainant. Therefore, on these facts whether the offence under Section 447 or Section 506 of the IPC can be alleged is required to be noticed. Section 447 of the IPC reads as follows:
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR "447. Punishment for criminal trespass.--Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
Section 447 deals with punishment for criminal trespass. The ingredients of what would mean criminal trespass are found in Section 441 of the IPC and it reads as follows:
"441. Criminal trespass.--Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
Section 441 mandates that there should be an entry of the accused into the property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any other person in possession of the property. As observed hereinabove, what is alleged is certain items were stolen. It is only the projection of the offence. The real intention of the complainant is in the photographs of the complaint which is the dispute between the husband and the wife. The lurking suspicion is illicit relationship between the petitioner and the wife of the complainant. The petitioner also accepts that coming to know that the 2nd respondent had indulged in certain assault against the wife and looking at her pathetic condition visited the wife of the 2nd respondent not alone but with accused No.4, the sister of the wife of the complainant. This is how the CCTV shows that the petitioner has entered the house on two dates on 22-05-2019 and 18-06-2019. This can hardly become an offence of criminal trespass, as it is not only entry but it requires criminal intent behind trespass, as the provision mandates that whoever
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR enters the property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate is said to commit the offence of criminal trespass. The complainant was not even present in the alleged scene. Therefore, there can be no question of criminal trespass with intent to harm the complainant.
11. In the aforesaid facts it becomes apposite to notice the judgment of the High Court of Madras in S.RAMESH v. STATE [2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2563] wherein it is held as follows:
"17. In order to constitute an offence of criminal trespass, the ingredients of Section 441 IPC will have to be satisfied. A reading of Section 441 IPC, it can be found that the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the property is a necessary ingredient of the offence of criminal trespass. The Trespasser is a person, entering the premises of another with knowledge that his entrance is excess of the permission that has been given to him. A mere entry into a property is not enough, except where such a entry is done to commit an offence injurious to some persons interested in the property, on which, trespass is committed, or for the purpose of causing annoyance to such a person. Therefore, such aggravated circumstances only make a trespass into a criminal trespass.
18. In this case, two factors will have to be taken into consideration to see, if the petitioners have really committed an offence of the trespass. The 1st factor is that the property, in which the offence is said to have taken place is a vacant property, which originally belonged to the Trust named Maha Semam Trust, which was run by the father of the petitioner and the 1st respondent and this property is right in front of the residence of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has entered into the property and cleared the Seemai Karuvelam trees, bushes, garbage and medical waste and the petitioner is not claiming any right over the property or has made any attempt to grab the property. Considering the relationship between the
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR parties, it will be too difficult to portray the act of the petitioner as a trespass. The witnesses have only spoken about the incident and there is no material to show that the petitioner intended to commit a criminal trespass as provided under Section 441 of IPC.
19. Going to the next offence of mischief, mischief has been defined in Section 425 IPC to mean an act done with an intention to cause or knowing that is likely to cause wrongful loss or damages to the public or any person, causes destruction to any property, etc., and must involve the mental act with the destructive animus. The destruction with an object to a wrongful loss or damage is obligatory to be established. In this case, what was removed from the property was the Seemai Karuvelam trees, bushes, garbage and medical waste, which was lying in front of residence of the petitioner. Therefore by no stretch, the act of the petitioner will constitute an offence of mischief.
20. Going to the third offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506(ii) IPC. The only allegation that has been made against the petitioner is an oral threat and nothing more. Section 503 IPC defines the criminal intimidation. The intention must be to cause alarm to the victim and materials have to be brought on record to show that the intention was to cause alarm to the person. A mere threat is not sufficient to attract the charge of criminal intimidation. In other words, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word."
(Emphasis supplied) The High Court of Madras holds that the trespasser entering the premises of another should have an intention to commit an offence. Mere entry would not amount to criminal trespass. Therefore, the offence under Section 447 of the IPC cannot even be seen to be laid against the petitioner. Merely because his presence in the house which depicts in the CCTV along with the sister of his wife/accused No.4 cannot become an offence under criminal trespass into the property of the complainant which
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR was also the property of the wife of the complainant.
12. The other offence that is alleged is one punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. Section 506 reads as follows:
"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."
Section 506 deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation has its ingredients in Section 503 of the IPC. Section 503 reads as follows:
"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 threats, 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."
Section 503 of the IPC has fallen for interpretation before the Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. [2023 SCC OnLine SC
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR 951]. The Apex Court specifically considering criminal intimidation has held as follows:
"SECTIONS 503, 504 AND 506 OF THE IPC
24. Chapter XXII of the IPC relates to Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:--
"Section 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 resist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation."
25. Section 504 reads thus:--
"Section 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."
26. Section 506 reads thus:--
"Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. --Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR 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."
27. An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:--
1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(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.
28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR 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. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the 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.
29. 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
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:--
"To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. 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)
30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the 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.
31. 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 of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 of the 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. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 of the 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."
The Apex Court explains the ingredients of Section 503 for it to become an offence under Section 506
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR of the IPC and holds that for an offence under Section 506 there should be complete ingredients of Section 503 to be present. Threatening a person with any injury to his person, reputation or property would all form the ingredients of Section 503. It is difficult to even comprehend as to how criminal intimidation is even laid against the petitioner. It is to be noticed that it has become a habit in these days to allege offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 in loosely laid facts. They are non-cognizable but nevertheless they are offences. Therefore, there should be ingredients present for alleging offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. If what the Apex Court has observed hereinabove is paraphrased to the facts obtaining in the case at hand, it would unmistakably emerge that the offence alleged against the petitioner is loosely laid qua Section 506 as well. Therefore, the said offence also is rendered unsustainable.
13. The other offence is offence Section 34 of the IPC. Section 34 requires a criminal act to be done. On the findings rendered hereinabove, there is no criminal act that has been performed. Therefore, Section 34 of the IPC qua the petitioner also tumbles down.
14. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised and the crime should be obliterated is what is required to be considered. This again need not detain this Court for long. The Apex Court in the case of MAHMOOD ALI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 950] has held as follows:
"ANALYSIS
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the FIR bearing No. 127 of 2022 should be quashed?
10. We are of the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are disclosed. It is pertinent to note that the FIR in question came to be lodged after a period of 14 years from the alleged illegal acts of the appellants. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offences has been disclosed.
11. The entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604. The parameters are:--
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
12. We are of the view that the case of the present appellants falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply of Bhajan Lal (supra).
13. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.
14. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:--
"5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations.
When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242
CRL.P No. 40 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024
CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024
HC-KAR
upon an enquiry whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death....."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside. The criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022 registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P. are hereby quashed."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court clearly holds that the complaint may be well drafted but it should be read between the lines to quash the proceedings by looking into the materials, the antecedents and all other attendant facts shrouded to the complaint. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BHAJAN LAL the Apex Court holds that it should be seen whether the complainant has sought to initiate the proceedings with mala fide intention.
15. The facts narrated hereinabove would clearly indicate that the complaint is registered with mala fide intention only to wreck vengeance against the lurking suspicion of illicit relationship between the petitioner and the complainant's wife dubbing the petitioner to be a paramour. In the circumstances, it becomes apposite to refer to the
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR subsequent paragraphs in the case of MOHAMMAD WAJID (supra) and they read as follows:
"33. In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 reply referred to above.
34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR
35. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:--
"5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para
6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death....."
(Emphasis supplied) If in the teeth of the aforesaid facts and the judgments rendered by the Apex Court (supra) further proceedings are permitted to continue against the petitioner, it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to take off the Damocles sword hanging on the head of the petitioner and obliterate the case so registered against him.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.51315 of 2021 pending before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru stand quashed qua the petitioner.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner/accused No.7 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same would not bind or influence the proceedings against any other accused.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2023 also stands disposed."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. The said judgment is said to have been tossed before the Apex Court by the complainant. The Apex Court rejects the Special Leave Petition - SLP(Crl) No. 010541 / 2024 by the following order:
"Delay condoned.
After hearing learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s) stand(s) disposed of.
However, the dismissal of the special leave petition would not come in the way of further investigation which is required to be undertaken by the police as per law."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR
10. The issue now would be, whether these petitioners can be alleged of offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC. Section 447 has its ingredients in Section 441 of the IPC. Section 441 punishes a person who trespasses into another's property. In the case at hand, three of the petitioners i.e. accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 were not even inside the property.
Therefore, the said offence cannot be laid against them. The remaining accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the wife and her parents.
The wife was entitled to stay in the matrimonial house, as it was her matrimonial house, and the parents of the wife who had come to visit the wife cannot be said to have trespassed into the property i.e. the matrimonial house. Therefore, the offence under Section 447 of the IPC does not meet the ingredients that are necessary under Section 441 of the IPC.
The offence under Section 447 of the IPC is thus loosely laid against the petitioners.
11. What remains is the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. For an offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC, the ingredients under Section 503 are necessary to be present. The ingredients of Section 503 is borne interpretation
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR by the Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1. The Apex Court formulates an issue as to how the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 should be proved qua the ingredients under Section 503 of the IPC. The Apex Court 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."
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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR 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
(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
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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,
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR (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)
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)
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR If the elucidation of law by the Apex Court is considered on the facts obtaining in the case at hand, it becomes unmistakably clear that none of the ingredients that are necessary to be present for an offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC is present in the case at hand.
12. In that light, permitting further trial against the petitioners would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. In that light, this Court is exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and obliterating the proceedings against the petitioners, failing which it would become a proceeding with patent injustice.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.51315 of 2021 pending on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit,
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8242 CRL.P No. 40 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3913 of 2024 CRL.P No. 3976 of 2024 HC-KAR Bengaluru stand quashed qua the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 6.
Consequently, I.A. No.1/2026 for impleading in Crl.P. No.40/2024 stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22