Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajashekhar Kalyanakar vs State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20907
CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11372 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJASHEKHAR KALYANAKAR
S/O. PANDURANG,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1 TO 279 TO 963,
WARD NO.3, NEAR JAGADEESH TEMPLE,
GULEDGUDD, BAGALKOT,
KARNATAKA-587 203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR ADV. FOR
SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY BENGALURU CITY
RAILWAY POLICE STATION,
Digitally
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
signed by
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
KAVYA G
Location: 2. SHRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ BIRADAR
High Court POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, BAYAPANAHALLI,
of Karnataka IN CHARGE INSPECTOR OF RCRB,
BENGALURU CITY-560 049.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS)
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7912/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 353,
419 AND 504 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 41ST ACMM
REGISTERED BENGALURU CITY RAILWAYS POLICE STATION,
VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B AND C.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20907
CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:
"i) Allow this petition and quash all proceedings in C.C.No.7912/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 353, 419 and 504 of IPC on the file of the learned 41st A.C.M.M., registered Bengaluru City Rly. Police Station, vide Annexures A, B and C;
ii) Issue any other order and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for both the respondents. Perused the material on record.
3. On perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 02.06.2022, suo-moto complaint was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 at 9.00 a.m., inter alia alleging that on 31.05.2022 at about 1:30 p.m., the petitioner is said to have committed offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. In -3- NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR pursuance of the said complaint which was registered in an FIR in Crime No.98/2022, the respondent - Police submitted a charge sheet, which is currently pending in C.C.No.7912/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 353, 419 and 504 of IPC.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that including the FIR, complaint, charge sheet material statement of witnesses and document etc., and insofar as offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC is considered, that the petitioner was an Ex-employee of the Intelligence Bureau (Central Government) and consequently, the question of the petitioner being incriminated for offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
5. So also, insofar as the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is considered, in the absence of sufficient material in this regard, that including the FIR, complaint, charge sheet material statement of witnesses and document etc., the petitioner also cannot be said to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.
-4-NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. The scope and ambit of the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC has come up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Manik Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka and another1, has held as under:
" 10. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police, the conviction under that Section could be maintainable. Before considering the materials on record, we may usefully refer to Section 353 IPC which reads as follows:-
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is 1 (2015) 7 SCC 423 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, that the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out."
So also, the Apex Court in the case of K. Dhananjay vs. Cabinet Secretary and others2, has held as under:
" Leave granted.
The appellant was an employee of Indian Institute of Astrophysics (Autonomous Institute under the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India) in Bangalore. Challenging his dismissal from service, he had filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore Bench.
Meanwhile, the appellant wanted to peruse certain documents, for which permission was given to him. While he was inspecting the documents in the office of Respondent No.5 Ms. A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal at Visveswarayya Kendriya Bhawan, Bangalore, it was alleged that the appellant assaulted the officers and therefore, a case was lodged against him under Sections 353/506 of the Indian Penal Code. His petition for quashing the proceedings has been dismissed and he is before this Court.
Vide order dated 27.08.2024, this Court issued notice to the respondents, including Respondent No.5 - Ms. A. Thomeena, but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents despite due service.
We have now perused the copy of the complaint which was given by Respondent No.5 Ms. A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar to the Inspector of Police, 2 Spl. Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5905/2022 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore. The same reads as under:-
"Sir, Today at 3.05 PM, we had one incident in our office. One Shri Dhananjay who had been a party to the proceedings before us had filed a complaint before the Chief Information Commission seeking certain documents. The CIC vide order No. CIC/CAD/MT/A/2018/611756/SD dated 01.07.2019 and asked us to give some documents. We had kept every document ready and asked him to come and get it and inspect the document which he wanted.
But apparently he wanted some other documents also which we felt had nothing to do with the order of the CIC. Therefore, being an official document, we had refused. Thereupon he started shouting and threatening us. At that time Smt. Rajashri, CPIO, Smt. Rekhashree, who is my PS, and Smt. Geetha who is an MTS were in the room. He threatening and shouted at them and disrupted the work of the office. Hearing the shouts and cries, people around gathered and I had immediately informed the police.
Kindly take necessary action."
It is on the basis of the above complaint that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant. However, the only allegation against the appellant in the said complaint is that he was shouting and threatening the staff. This itself will not amount to any assault.
Assault is defined under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as under:-
"353 Assault - Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault."-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR We have reproduced the entire complaint hereinabove. On perusing the same, we find that none of the ingredients, as mentioned in Section 353 IPC, is reflected in the complaint letter. In other words, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out in this case. The High Court, to our mind, has committed a mistake in not interfering in this case. This is a case which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we allow this appeal and quash the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant."
7. Similarly, the co-ordinate benches of this Court came to a conclusion that in the absence of necessary ingredients constituting offences under Section 353 of IPC, held as under:
"1. Sri Devarajegowda vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.3158/2024; DD 04.09.2024.
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.32/2024 for offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC, before the Hassan City Police Station, Hassan.
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.Aruna Shyam M., for the learned counsel Sri.Shashidhar Belagumba, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.Jagadeesha B.N., appearing for the respondents.
3. The second respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District is the complainant. The gist of the complaint is that a complaint comes to be registered by the petitioner alleging that one J Deepak Gowda and his mother were granted eight CL- 7 Excise licenses to run a Bar and Restaurant or a Bar independently of the restaurant, as the case would be. After the registration of the complaint, the petitioner appears to have come to the office of the complainant venting out several grievances.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR One of the grievance was with regard to Mr.J.Deepak Gowda having eight CL-7 licenses and several illegalities on the said license. The petitioner had complained this to the Commissioner of Excise on 27.09.2023. No action was taken. The petitioner again registered a complaint now before the present complainant on 18.03.2024 inter alia with regard to gross violation of Karnataka Excise Act and also brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that those licenses ought to have been withdrawn. Between the dates i.e., 27.09.2023 to 18.03.2024, happens the subject incident. It is the case of the complainant that on 14.03.2024 at about 7.00 p.m., the petitioner has without any prior permission in the compound of the Deputy Commissioner held press conference and has also hurled certain abuses upon the complainant. The complainant registers a crime on 19.03.2024 that the act of the petitioner has caused a dent to her respect. This becomes a crime in Crime No.32/2024 for offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC. It is the registration of the crime that has driven the petitioner to this Court, in the subject petition.
4. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had visited the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, when he was coming out of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, the press was waiting for a byte from him. Therefore, he stood and gave a minute byte to the press with regard to what had transpired in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that nowhere in the complaint it is alleged by the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner had stopped the Deputy Commissioner from functioning, which would become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC. He would seek quashment of the entire proceedings for it being an abuse of process of law.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the complaint though does not narrate it happened in the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner, there are statements recorded and Mahazar drawn later that everything has happened in the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the offence is made out and the investigation should be permitted to be continued.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue at present is with regard to the offence under Section 353 of the IPC and the offence has sprung from the complaint so registered by the Deputy Commissioner. The complaint registered by the Deputy Commissioner reads as follows:
"¸ÀASÉå: JA.J.f/551/2023-24 ¢£ÁAPÀ:19/03/2024 ೕ ೕ ಕರು, ಾಸನ ನಗರ ಾ ೆ, ಾಸನ.
ಾನ ೆ, ಷಯ: . ೇವ ಾ ೇ ೌಡ, ವ ೕಲರು ೋ#ೆನರ$ೕಪ&ರರವರ ರುದ( )ಾನೂನು ೕತ ಕ+ಮ ಜರು.ಸುವ ಕು ತು.
ಉ0ೆ1ೕಖ: 1. 3ೕ ಾ ಜಯ 4 ಟ6 ಯೂಟು 7 8ಾ9ೆ6 ನ 1 " 0ಾ1:)ಾ ೆ ಆ ೆ ಸ<ಾಲು ಾ ದ ವ ೕಲ ೇವ ಾ ೇ ೌಡ" =ೕ>?)ೆ ಅ4ಯ 1 ಪ+Aಾರ<ಾ.ರುವ 4Bೕ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15/03/2024
2. ಬಹುಜನರ ಧF GನಪH+)ೆಯ ಪ&ಟ ಸಂJೆ :02 ರ 1 ಪ+ಕಟ<ಾ.ರುವ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16/03/2024
3. ಈ ಕLೇ ಯ ಸಮ ಪತ+ ಸಂJೆ G9ಾಂಕ:09/02/2024
4. ಈ ಕLೇ ಯ HಳNವO)ೆ ಪತ+ G9ಾಂಕ:16/03/2024
5. . ೇವ ಾ ೇ ೌಡ ಾಸನ ರವರ ಪ+ತು ತPರ G9ಾಂಕ:
18/03/2024.
***** QೕಲRಂಡ ಷಯ)ೆR ಸಂಬಂ:$ದಂSೆ ಉ0ೆ1ೕಖದ ಪತ+ದನTಯ . ೇವ ಾ ೇ ೌಡ ವ ೕಲರು ೊ#ೆನರ$ೕಪ&ರ ರವರು G9ಾಂಕ:14/03/2024ರ ಗುರು<ಾರ ಸಂ ೆ:7:00 ಗಂUೆ ಸಮಯದ 1 Vಾವ& ೇ ಅನುಮH ಪWೆಯ ೆ 0ಾ1:)ಾ ಗಳ ಕ8ೇ ಯ ಅವರಣದ 1 ಪH+)ಾ Yೂೕ>Z ೕ4ರುSಾP ೆ ಮತುP ನನ ೆ ಂ:$ ಸ)ಾ?ರದ ಾಗೂ Aಾವ?ಜ ಕರ ಕತ?ವ )ೆR ಅಡಚ ೆ
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR ಉಂಟು ಾ4ರುSಾP ೆ. ಮತುP ಕ#ೆದ ಆರು Hಂಗಳ \ಂ ೆ )ಾನೂನು ]ಾ\ರ<ಾ. ನWೆಯುHPರುವ ಚನ^ ಾಯಪಟ_ಣ Sಾಲೂ1 ನ ಆ ಾ ]ಾ` ಅಂa ೆAೊ_ೕ ೆಂb ಗಳ ರುದ( ಅಬ)ಾ ಇ0ಾJೆ ಆಯುಕPರು ತ Jೆ ನWೆ$ ಯಮ ಉಲಂd$ರುವ&ದು ದೃಢಪg_ದುh ಕ+ಮ )ೈ ೊಳNjವಂSೆ 0ಾ1:)ಾ ಗO ೆ ವರG ಾಡ0ಾ.ರುತP ೆಂದು. ಆದ ೆ 0ಾ1:)ಾ ಗ#ಾದ ಸತ kಾಮರವರು ಆ ಾ ]ಾ` ಅಂa ೆAೊ_ೕ ೆಂbಗಳ ರುದ( ಕ+ಮ )ೈ ೊಳNjವ ಬದ0ಾ. ಕಡತಗಳನು^ ತಮl ಬOmೕ ಇಟು_)ೊಂಡು ಅವ ವ ಾರ ಾಡುHPರುವವರ ಪರ<ಾ. )ೆಲಸ ಾಡುHP ಾh ೆ ಎಂದು ಆ ೋo$ G9ಾಂಕ: 15/03/2024ರ ಸುGhYೂೕ>Zಯ 1 HO$ರುSಾP ೆ ಸದ ಷಯವ& G9ಾಂಕ:16/03/2024ರಂದು ಉ0ೆ1ೕಖ(2)ರ Gನ ಪH+)ೆಯ 1 ಪ+ಕಟ<ಾ.ರುತP ೆ.
ಉ0ೆ1ೕಖ(4)ರ 1 ಸದ ಷಯದ ಬ ೆp ಆ ೋo$ರುವ ಕು ತು ಮl ಬO ಇರುವ Aಾqಾrಾರದ ಪsರಕ ಾಖ0ೆಗಳನು^ ಈ ಕLೇ ೆ 07 Gನಗ#ೆt ಳ ೆ ೕಡಲು ಸೂu$ ತovದ 1 ೕವ& ಾ4ರುವ ಸುಳNj ಆ ೋಪದ ರುದ( ಸೂಕP )ಾನೂನು ಕ+ಮ ಜರು.ಸ0ಾಗುವ&ದು ಎಂದು . ೇವ ಾ ೇ ೌಡ ºÉƼɣÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ ರವ ೆ HಳNವO)ೆ ಪತ+ ಾ ಾಡ0ಾ.ರುತP ೆ.
G9ಾಂಕ:18/03/2024 ರಂದು =+ೕ . ೇವ ಾ ೇ ಾಡ ೆ HಳNವO)ೆ ಪತ+ ಾ Vಾ.ದುh ಸದ Gನದಂ ೇ ಈ ಕLೇ ೆ ಪ+ತು ತPರ ಸ 1$ರುSಾP ೆ. ಸದ ಪ+ತು ತPರದ 1 "ಅ:)ಾರ ದುರುಪBೕಗ ಾಗೂ ದುನ?ಡSೆwಂ ೆ ನWೆದು)ೊಂ4ರುವ ಬ ೆp ಪH+)ಾ Yೂೕ>Zಯ 1 9ಾಗ ೕಕ ೆ HOಸ0ಾ. ೆ. ಆದ ೆ ೕವ& ನನ ೆ G9ಾಂಕ:16/03/2024 ರಂದು ನನ^ನು^ ]ೆದ ಸಲು HಳNವO)ೆ ಪತ+ವನು^ ೕ4ರುHPೕರ ಈ ೕHಯ ]ೆದ )ೆಗO ೆ )ಾನೂನು ೕHಯ 1 ಉತPರ )ೊಡುSೆPೕ9ೆ. Sಾವ& ಈ ಕೂಡ0ೇ 9ೈHಕ ೊ ೆ ೊತುP ತಮl ಹು ೆhwಂದ ಗ?x$ದ ೆ ೕವ& ಈ ಸ ಾಜವನು^ ಾಗೂ 9ಾಗ ೕಕರನು^ ೌರ $ದಂSಾಗುತP ೆ. Sಾವ& ಇ ೇ ೕHಯ 1 ದುನ?ಡSೆwಂದ ವH?$ದ ೆ ತಮlನು^ ಕೂಡ0ೇ ಕತ?ವ 0ೋಪ, ಅ:)ಾರ ದುರಪBೕಗ ಾಗೂ ದುನ?ಡSೆಯ ಆrಾರ Qೕ0ೆ ಮlನು^ Aೇ<ೆwಂದ ವ ಾ ೊOಸಲು )ಾನೂನು ೋ ಾಟ ನWೆಸ0ಾಗುವ&ದು" ಎಂದು ಪ+ತು ತPರ ಸ 1$ರುSಾP ೆ. ಆದ ೆ ನನ^ ರುದ( ಾಸನ 0ೆ1ಯ 1 ಅತ ಂತ ಕಡು ಭ+ಷ_ 0ಾ1:)ಾ Vಾ.ದh ೆಂದು ಾ4ರುವ ಆ ೋಪಗO ೆ ಸಂಬಂ:$ದ Vಾವ& ೇ Aಾqಾ ಾರದ ಪsರಕ ಾಖ0ೆಗಳನು^ ಪತ+ದ ೊSೆ ಸ 1$ರುವ&Gಲ1.
ಚನ^
ಚನ^ ಾಯಪಟ_
ಾಯಪಟ_ಣ Sಾಲೂ1
ಾಲೂ1 ನ ಆ ಾ ]ಾ` ಅಂa
ಅಂa ೆAೊ_
ೊ _ೕ ೆಂb
ೆಂbಗಳ ರುದ(
ರುದ( ಅಬ)
ಅಬ)ಾ
ಇ0ಾJೆ ಆಯುಕP
ಆಯುಕರು
Pರು ತ Jೆ
J ೆ ನWೆ$ ಯಮ ಉಲಂd$
ಉಲಂd$ರುವ
d$ರುವ ]ಾ` ಅಂa
ಅಂa ೆAೊ_
ೊ _ೕ ೆಂb
ೆಂbಗಳ ರುದ(
ರುದ(
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907
CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024
HC-KAR
ಕ+ಮ)ೆR ಬ ೆGರುವ ಪತ+
ಪತ+ದ ಬ ೆp ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ_
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ_ ಮೂಲ ಕಡತ ೊಂG
ೊಂG ೆ ಮಂ4$
ಮಂ4$ ಕ+ಮವ\
ಮವ\ಸಲು ಉಪ
ಆಯುಕP
ಆಯುಕರು
Pರು ಅಬ)
ಅಬ)ಾ ಇ0ಾJೆ ಾಸನ ರವ ೆ G9ಾಂಕ
G9ಾಂಕ:09/02/2024 ರಂದು ಉ0ೇಖ
1ೕಖ(3)ರ 1 ಪತ+
ಪತ+
ಬ ೆಯ0
ೆಯ0ಾ. ದುh
ದು h ಸದ 8ಾರ
8ಾರ<
ಾರ<ಾ. ಅಬ)
ಅಬ)ಾ ಇ0ಾJೆwಂದ )ೈ ೊಂಡ ಕ+ಮದ ವರG
ವರGಯನು^
ಯನು^
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ_
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ_ ಇ0ಾJೆwಂದ ಪWೆಯಬಹು ಾ.ರುತP
ರುತP ೆ ಎಂದು HO$ದರೂ
HO$ದರೂ ಸಹ ಸದ ಯವರು
G9ಾಂಕ
G9ಾಂಕ:14/03/2024ರ ಗುರು<
ಗುರು<ಾರ ಸಂ ೆ:7:00 ಗಂU
ಗಂUೆ ಸಮಯದ 1 ಅನಗತ
ಅನಗತ <ಾ
<ಾ. ನನ ೆ ಂ:$, )ೈ
ಸ9ೆ^ಯನು^
ಯನು^ ಾ4 ]ೆದ $ ಎತP
ಎತಂಗ4
Pಂಗ
ಂಗ4 ಾ4$ರು
4$ರುS
ರುSೇP 9ೆ ಎಂದು ೇO
ೇO ಸ)ಾ?ರದ ಮತುP
ಮತುP Aಾವ?
ಾವ?ಜ ಕರ
ಕತ?
ಕತ?ವ )ೆ
)ೆR ಅಡಚ ೆ ಉಂಟು ಾ4, ಧ ಇ0ಾJೆಯ ಅ:)ಾ
:)ಾ ಗಳN
ಗಳN ಇ0ಾJಾ )ೆಲಸ)
ೆಲಸ)ಾR. ಬಂG
ಬಂGದುh
ದುh ಆ
)ೆಲಸವನು^
ೆಲಸವನು^ ವ?\ಸಲು
?\ಸಲು Aಾಧ <ಾಗದಂ
<ಾಗದಂS
ಾಗದಂSೆ ಕತ?
ಕತ?ವ )ೆ
)ೆR ಅ4zಪ4$ರು
4$ರುS
ರುSಾP ೆ. 0ಾ
0ಾ:
1 )ಾ
)ಾ ಮತುP
ಮತುP
0ಾ
0ಾದಂW
1ದಂWಾ:)ಾ
ದಂ :)ಾ Vಾದ
Vಾದ ನನ^
ನನ^ ರುದ(
ರುದ( Vಾವ&
ಾವ& ೇ ಪsರಕ ಾಖ0
ಾಖ0ೆಗಳನು^
ೆಗಳನು^ ೊಂG
ೊಂGರ ೆ ಸುGh
ಸುGh ೋ>Z
ೋ>Z
ನWೆ$ರುS
ರುSಾP ೆ. ಇದh
ಇದ h ಂದ ನನ ೆ ಸ)ಾ?ರದ ಾಗೂ Aಾವ?
ಾವ?ಜ ಕರ ಕತ?
ಕತ?ವ )ೆ
)ೆR \ನ^Wೆಉಂ
^WೆಉಂU
^W ೆಉಂ Uಾ.ದುh
ದುh
0ೆ
0ೆಯ
1 Aಾವ?
ಾವ?ಜ ಕರು ಮತುP
ಮತು P ಸ)ಾ?ರದ ಮಟ_
ಮಟ_ದ 1 ನನ^
ನನ^ Qೕ0ೆ ಇg_ದ
g_ದ ೌರವ)
ೌರವ)ೆR ದ)ೆR ಉಂU
ಉಂUಾ.ರುತP
ರುತP ೆ.
ಆದh ಂದ 0ೆ1ಯ 1 ಮSೊPQl ಇಂತಹ ಪ+ಕರಣಗಳN ಮರುಕOಸದಂSೆ .
ೇವ ಾ ೇ ೌಡ, ವ ೕಲರು, )ಾಮಸಮುದ+ ಾ+ಮ, ಹ#ೇ)ೋUೆ ೋಬO, ೊ#ೆನರ$ೕಪ&ರ Sಾಲೂ1ಕುರವರ ರುದ( ಐ.o.$.353 ಮತುP ಇತರ ಅನTಯ<ಾUÀĪÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À CrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ."
8. It is the complaint of the Deputy Commissioner so registered on 19.03.2024 that on 14.03.2024 at about 7.00 p.m., without any permission from the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has conducted a press conference in the premises of the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner further alleges that the petitioner had brought down her respect by speaking loud in front of the other Officers. All this according to the complainant has resulted in stopping of her performance of public duties and therefore, it has become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC.
9. The justification of the learned Senior counsel is that when the petitioner walked out of the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner when he had agitated with regard to eight CL-7 licenses being given to someone or any other issue, the people from the press had taken a byte from him with regard to what has happened inside. The justification stands to reason for the reason that there is no averment in the complaint that the petitioner has entered the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner, created a problem or stopped the Deputy Commissioner from performing her functions. If that is not the complaint, the foundation becomes shaky. The State wants to build a superstructure on the shaky foundation by recording statements after the event had happened. The event admittedly had happened on 14.03.2024 and the complaint itself comes to be
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR registered on 19.03.2024. The complainant is the Deputy Commissioner. If what is narrated in the complaint, it would not take five full days for the complainant to wake up and register the complaint. If the Deputy Commissioner's functioning has been impeded, she ought to have without any loss of time registered the complaint, not thinking for five days that what kind of complaint should be registered. Therefore between 14.03.2024 and 19.03.2024 it is obvious that the second respondent was collecting evidence to register the crime. Thus, the very incident is shrouded with inherent improbability that would necessarily lead to obliteration of the crime, as the ingredients that are necessary for an offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC are completely lacking in the case at hand. Section 353 of the IPC reads as follows:
" 353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 353 of the IPC directs whoever assaults or uses criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of their duty they would become open to prosecution. It uses the words assault, criminal force. The significance and interpretation of these words need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.
10. A three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar Sonker vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1924, has held as follows:
"15. At the outset, we extract hereinbelow Section 353 of the IPC:
"353.- Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
A perusal of Section 353 indicates that whoever assaults or uses criminal force (a) to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or (b) with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or (c) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
16. It is important at this stage to notice the definition of criminal force as defined in Section 350 of the IPC.
"350. Criminal force.- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other."
As would be clear, what is required to establish criminal force is intentional use of force to any person without that person's consent in order to the committing of any offence.
17. Section 349 of the IPC which defines force is extracted hereinbelow :
"349. Force.- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described.
First. - By his own bodily power.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR Secondly. - By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.
Thirdly. - By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move."
18. Assault under Section 351 of the IPC would mean whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person.
19. In this background, if we peruse the evidence on record, insofar as the charge under Section 353 of the IPC is concerned, it will transpire that none of the ingredients required for convicting a person under Section 353 of IPC were attracted."
11. The Apex Court holds that Section 353 of the IPC requires use of criminal force or even force. Section 349 of the IPC and Section 350 of the IPC deal with force and criminal force, which the Apex Court considers. The Apex Court holds that the evidence therein did not meet the ingredient of Section 353 of the IPC. If the findings of the Apex Court are paraphrased to the facts obtaining in the case on hand, what would unmistakably emerge is that none of the ingredients that are necessary for a force, criminal force for it to become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC is present even to its semblance, though the case before the Apex Court was after trial, I deem it appropriate to follow the same even to obliterate the FIR on the ground that the complaint does not have the foundational facts for it to become the ingredients of Section 353 of the IPC. It is undoubtedly shrouded with inherent improbability. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJANLAL3, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of 3 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(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 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.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR (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."
In the light of the aforesaid reasons and the judgments of the Apex Court quoted supra, if further investigation is permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice."
The Apex Court has held that at the stage of crime it can be obliterated, if in the event, if the event is said to be true, even it does not make out an offence.
12. In the light of the complaint not making even a semblance of the offence, permitting further investigation against the petitioner would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed; and
ii) The FIR in Crime No.32/2024 registered by the Hassan City Police Station, Hassan, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court, Hassan District, Hassan, qua the petitioner, stands quashed."
2 .Sri. B.C.Kempaiah vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.4664/2023; DD 05.06.2024.
The petitioner-accused calls in question the proceedingsin C.C.No.7895 of 2023 registered for offences punishableunder Sections 353 and 504 of the IPC. The 2nd respondent isthe complainant, an Executive Officer of Huliyuramma DeviTemple, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur.
2. Heard Sri Ashutosh K.L., learned counsel appearing fo rpetitioner and Sri. Harish Ganapathy,
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The petitioner claims to be a devotee of Shree Huliyuramma Devi Temple and was earlier a member of the Temple Management Committee. It is his claim that he has been fighting for development of the temple. Petitioner had submitted an application seeking certified copies of certain documents to the 2nd respondent-complainant, who was the Competent Authority to furnish those documents. The documents were not furnished. It transpires that the petitioner visits the office of the 2nd respondent/complainant on 04-09-2022, at which point in time, it is the averment in the petition that the staff of the office of the 2nd respondent have beaten the petitioner for having sought documents and spoken in abusive language to the petitioner. The petitioner initially said to have filed a complaint to the 1st respondent on08-09-2022, thereafter, on 06-10-2022 the petitioner registers a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate in PCR No.54 of 2022 which came to be- registered in Crime No.157 of 2022, as the complaint that he had sought to register immediately after the incident was rendered with a non- cognizable report by the 1st respondent. After the registration of the private complaint by the petitioner against the complainant, as a counter blast, the 2ndrespondent/complainant registers a crime against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 of the IPC in Crime No.160 of 2022. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet before the concerned Court. Filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the crime registered against the present petitioner is a counterblast to what he had registered against the complainant, the Government servant. Nowhere it is the allegation that the petitioner has stopped the Government servant from functioning with a criminal force. Learned counsel would submit that the crime registered is an abuse of the process of the law and should be quashed.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submission to contend that even use of force to stop a Government servant from functioning would amount to an offence under Section 353 of the IPC. He would though admit the date of registration of the complaint by the2nd respondent on 06-10-2022 close to a month after the alleged incident, he would nevertheless seek that the petitioner should come out clean in a full blown trial.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, as they are the averment in the complaint and in the petition as well. It would suffice if the story would commence from 04-09-2022,the date on which the petitioner is said to have visited the office of the Executive Officer of the temple, on which date the allegations spring both from the petitioner and against the petitioner. From the petitioner resulting in a registration of a private complaint for offences punishable under Sections 120B,323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC wherein the learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation under Section156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The moment the matter is referred for investigation comes the complaint of the 2nd respondent/complainant as a counter blast.
8. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that it is a counter blast stands to reason on a sheer noticing of the dates. The incident happens i.e., on 04-09-2022. The private complaint is registered by the petitioner on 06-10-2022.The moment the matter is referred to investigation, on 14-10-2022 comes the subject complaint by the 2ndrespondent/complainant. The allegation is the one punishable under Sections 353 and 504 of the IPC. Section 353 of the IPC reads as follows:
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR "353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or inconsequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
The ingredients of Section 353 of the IPC are unequivocal. Usage of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty is imperative. Usage of criminal force is what is necessary for an act to become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC.
9. In the case on hand, a perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that the allegation is so bald that it doe not meet any of the ingredients. There is no criminal force used by the petitioner to deter the 2nd respondent from performing his duty. Even if it is construed to be correct, the public servant need not have waited for 41 days after the happening of the incident. The incident had happened on 04-9-2022 and the complaint is filed on 14- 10-2022 that too after reference by the learned Magistrate for investigation against the complainant ina private complaint registered by the petitioner. Therefore, it is a clear case being registered as a counter blast or to wreak vengeance against the petitioner without there being any ingredient of Section 353 of the IPC.
10. What remains is the offence under Section 504 of the IPC, for which, the ingredient in Section 503 of the IPC would be necessary. The Apex Court in the very judgment considers what should be necessary ingredient
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR under Section 503 of the IPC, which is ostensibly absent in the case at hand. Therefore, finding no warrant to continue the trial against the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the same, failing which, it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceeding in C.C.No.7895 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumakuru stands quashed.
3. Sri. Syed Ibrahim vs. State by Channapatna East P.S in Crl.P.No.10483/2022; DD 02.11.2023:
Petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2are sought to beprosecuted for the offences under Sections 341, 353, 506 and 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution is that; accused No.1 was running the hotel business beyond 11.30 pm on the date of incident, and when the complainant and other police personnel questioned the same, the accused abused them with un parliamentary words, and threatened them with dire consequences and restrained them from discharging their official duties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even accepting the allegations made against the petitioners, on the face of it, does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State submits that the petitioners by restraining the police personnel from discharging their duties and abusing them have committed the aforesaid offences and the veracity of the allegations can be considered at the time of trial and the same cannot be gone into in this petition.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Section 353 of IPC deals with assault or criminal force to deter the public servant from discharge of his duties and it reads thus:
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servantfrom discharge of his duty. - Whoever assaults oruses criminal force to any person being a publicservant in the execution of his duty as such publicservant, or with intent to prevent or deter that personfrom discharging his duty as such public servant, or inconsequence of anything done or attempted to bedone by such person to the lawful discharge of hisduty as such public servant, shall be punished withimprisonment of either description for a term whichmay extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.''
7. To constitute an offence under Section 353 of IPC, a person must have assaulted or used criminal force in deterring the public servant from discharging the official duties. The term 'criminal force' is defined under Sections 349 and 350 of IPC. A reading of the aforesaid provisions indicate that, to use criminal force means causing injury, fear or annoyance to the person against whom criminal force is used.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR
8. In the instant case, there is no allegation, much less, any material against the petitioners herein, either assaulting or using criminal force, so as to deter the police personnel from discharging their duties, except that the petitioners abused and threatened the police personnel which does not satisfy the requirement of Sections 349 and 350 of IPC. Therefore, the essential elements to constitute the commission of an offence under Section 353of IPC is conspicuously absent.
9. Though it is alleged that the petitioners are running the hotel beyond the stipulated period, utmost may constitute an offence under Section 188 of IPC and the cognizance of the said offences can be taken only upon a complaint in writing by the officers prescribed under Section 189 of IPC. However, the police to overcome the said provision have not invoked the said provision.
10. To constitute an offence under Section 341 of IPC, a person must have wrongfully restrained another person from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits. In the instant case, there is no allegation or material that the petitioners restrained the police personnel from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits, except the allegation that they restrained the police personnel from discharging their duties. Threatening the police personnel with dire consequences has not resulted in breach of public peace or committing any other offense by the complainant or his staff, which is an essential ingredient to constitute commission of offence under Section 506 of IPC. Therefore, in view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not sub- serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceeding in C.C.No.1152/2021 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna stands quashed."
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. Mr. Satish Poojary vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.6880/2020; DD 08.04.2022.
In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
"1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs quashing the First Information Report in crimeNo.95/2020 of the Moodbidri Police Station pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC Court Moodabidre, vide Annexure - D.
2. Issue appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner.
3. Issue appropriate writ or directions directing the respondent No.1 to hold enquiry regarding the illegalities and lapses in registration of criminal case and take appropriate actions against respondent-2/police official and respondent No.3 responsible for illegal registration of the FIR.
4. Issue appropriate writ or direction tothe Government of Karnataka/respondent No.1 directing them to upload all the First Information Reports within one hour of the registration of FIR, in the official website of the concerned police stations and also on the concerned police commissionerate /Office of the Superintendent Police of the concerned District.
5. Issue appropriate writs or directions to the respondent No.1, submit compliance report regarding the steps taken to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Youth Bar Association of India V/s. Union of India and Another reported in [(2016) 9 SCC 473]; [(2016) 3SCC/Cri) 691: 2016 SCC Online SC914 vide Annexure - F regarding the uploading of the FIR in the official website and respondent No.1 may also be directed to publish the web portals of all the police stations of the state and
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR commissionerate /District headquarter wherein the First Information Reports would be uploaded".
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.P.Hegde submitted that he would not press the reliefs 2 and 3.
3. At the instance of the third respondent, the second respondent police registered an FIR against the petitioner in Cr.No.95/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 353, 506 and 507 of IPC. The petitioner is a member of Kallamandkuru Gram Panchayat. He is also a member of Kallamandkuru Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha. He claims to be a public spirited person involved in various social activities. It is stated in the writ petition that on the onslaught of Covid-19, he involved himself in identifying the poor and the destitute, and supplying to them the essential commodities. He noticed that the PDO of the Panchayat, i.e., respondent No.3 was negligent in discharging his duties in taking effective steps for containing the spread of Covid-19. Therefore he espoused the cause of public by raising an objection in regard to the inefficiency of the third respondent in discharging his duties. He circulated a message through whatsapp in this regard. Then he started receiving phone calls from respondent No.3. The petitioner tried to obtain certain information under RTI, which would have exposed the malpractices and corrupt methods adopted by respondent No.3 in discharging the public duty. This being the background, on 10t h April, 2020 the petitioner came to know that an FIR had been registered against him in Cr.No.95/2020 at Moodbidre Police Station on the allegation that he had circulated a post on social media against respondent No.3. The petitioner stated that third respondent being a public servant influenced the police to register FIR for non bailable offence seven though he had not committed any offence. Therefore the petitioner has filed this writ petition for above mentioned reliefs.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. I heard Sri. P.P.Hegde, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B.J.Rohith, learned Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. K. Anandarama, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
5. It was the argument of Sri. P.P.Hegde that the second respondent police yielded to third respondent for registering an FIR for the offence sunder sections 353, 506 and 507 IPC. Elaborating the argument, he submitted that if the information posted by the petitioner on social media as per Annexure 'B' is read, it may be noticed that the petitioner just tried to bring awareness among the people during Covid-19 period that the third respondent being the Panchayat Development Officer had neglected his duty. The Government instructed all the concerned officials as to the steps to be taken for effectively containing the spread of Covid-19 and the tests to be conducted for detecting Covid-19. In the information that he posted on social media, there is no material that the petitioner ever put a threat to third respondent or used criminal force while he was discharging his official duty as a public servant. The essential ingredient of section 353 is committing assault or using criminal force while a public servant was discharging his official duty in order to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant. He submitted that the terms, 'criminal force' and 'assault' found in section 353 IPC take the meanings ascribed to them in sections 350 and 351 respectively and therefore the offence under section 353 is not constituted. There are no ingredients for invoking the offences under sections 506 and 507 IPC. The first information given by third respondent to the police does not disclose that any one of the above offences is attracted. If the petitioner circulated some information on social media in the interest of public, it does not amount to committing any offence. Registration of FIR is nothing but abuse of process of court and law and it is frivolous also. Hence it needs to be quashed.
5.1. Another point of argument of Sri P.P.Hegde was that the petitioner, after coming to know that an FIR had been registered against him was not able to get a copy of it.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR He searched the official website of the police department to ascertain whether FIR had been registered against him. He found that FIR was not uploaded in the portal of the police department. Therefore respondents 1 and 2 violated the clear direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India and Another [(2016) 9 SCC 473]. He pleaded forgiving directions to the first respondent for uploading the FIR on the official website of the District Superintendent of Police so that the persons who are involved in the FIR can avail legal assistance immediately in order to safe guard their personal liberty.
6. Sri B.J.Rohith, learned Government Pleader, submits that the contents of the report made by the third respondent clearly disclose commission of a cognizable offence punishable under section 353 of IPC. Though the offences under sections 506 and 507 are non-cognizable, the offence under section 353 is cognizable. FIR had to be registered for that reason. Investigation is in progress and therefore FIR cannot bequashed.
6.1. In regard to uploading of the FIR in the official website of the police department, it is submitted that already FIRs were being uploaded. In addition, in every police station website address is being displayed. There is no need to issue one more direction.
7. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that Annexure-R9 produced along with statement of objections was another complaint registered against the petitioner. This complaint has been suppressed intentionally. If the FIR is perused, it becomes very clear that essential ingredients of using criminal force and committing assault for putting threat to respondent No.3 who is a public servant, is very much present. Actual use of criminal force is not required, just a gesture is sufficient to invoke the offence under section 353 IPC. The petitioner claiming himself to be RTI activist, has indulged in blackmailing the public servants if his demand is not met.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR The petitioner put threat to the third respondent of getting him transferred to a far off place. This certainly amounts to interfering with discharging the official duty. Moreover the matter is under investigation and hence the FIR cannot be quashed.
8. I have considered the arguments. In this petition the quashing of FIR is sought. It is a well established principle that the High Court should exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or section 482 of the Cr.P.C with great circumspection for quashing the FIR. Nipping the criminal action at the inception is not encouraged unless it is pointed out that the FIR does not disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence complained of or registration of FIR is with mala fide intention. Investigation process should not be stalled. In the case of State of Karnataka and Another vs Pastor P Raju [(2006) 6 SCC 728] it is held that the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to secure ends of justice, but such a power cannot be exercised to interfere with statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable case.
9. In the case on hand, second respondent police has registered FIR against the petitioner for the offences under sections 353, 506 and 507 of IPC. Of these three offences, the only cognizable offence is under section 353, the other two being non-cognizable. Therefore, firstly it is to be found out whether the report given by the third respondent makes out ingredients necessary for invoking that offence. In order to appreciate the facts, it is better to extract here the report made by the third respondent :
" © GUÀæ¥Àà ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj PÀ®èªÀÄAqÀÆÌgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR EªÀjUÉ DgÀPÀëPÀ G¥À¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ DgÀPÀëPÀ oÁuÉ ªÀÄÆqÀÄ©¢gÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrØ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÄÀ ä PÀbÉÃjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð ¸À°èPÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:09.04.2020 ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÉÄð£À G¯ÉèÃRzÀ£éÀAiÀÄ ²æÃ.¸Àwñï vÉÆÃqÀQ® PÀ®èªÀÄAqÀÆÌgÀÄ EªÀgÀ §UÉÎ FUÁUÀ¯Éà zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F zÀÆgÀÄ CfðUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ F «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆqÁ vÀªÀÄä UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.
1. ¸Àwñï EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ eÁ®vÁtzÀ°è £À£Àß §UÉÎ QüÀÄ ±À§ÝUÀ¼À°è §gÀªÀtÂUÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÁQ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
2. CªÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ §zÀÞªÁVgÀ¢zÀÝ°è, £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä M¥Àà¢zÀÝgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w ºÀQÌ£À°è ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉý ¨ÉÃgÉ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è CrØ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
3. Hj£À°è EªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÉʪÀÄ£À¸ÀÄì ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ AiÀiÁjUÁzÀgÆ À PÀbÉÃj PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÖgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉUÉ (¤Ãj®èzÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÉÌ) ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå PÀæªÄÀ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ vÀªÄÀ ä°è ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ.
vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ © GUÀ¥Àà "
10. The FIR came to be registered in the background of posting of a message or information by the petitioner on social media. For invoking the offence under section 353
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR the essential ingredient to be present is that a person accused of committing this offence should have assaulted or used criminal force against a public servant while discharging his official duty. The words 'criminal force' and 'assault' find their meaning in sections 350 and 351 IPC respectively. Section 350 requires the following ingredients to be satisfied : -
(i) Intentional use of force to any person
(ii) Force must have been used without the person's consent and
(iii) The force must be used for committing an offence or with intention to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom it is used.
11. The word 'assault' as defined in section351 means making of a gesture or preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that the gesture or the preparation will cause apprehension in the mind of another person that criminal force will be used against him. The illustrations to sections 350 and 351 IPC make the meaning of words 'criminal force' and 'assault' very clear. In common parlance, the word 'assault' is understood as 'one person beating another person with or without weapon'. But this common parlance meaning cannot be employed while examining the FIR to find out whether an offence under section 353 IPC is made out or not, in the given set of circumstances. In the case on hand, the third respondent has made three allegations as extracted above. First allegation is that the petitioner posted certain messages in awkward language. The second one pertains to putting threat to him in case he did not agree for his demands and that the third one is again putting threat to getting him transferred to another place in case he attended to the work of anybody whom the petitioner did not like. These
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR allegations do not disclose either using criminal force or making assault. No doubt the third petitioner is a public servant. Mere posting of a message on social media does not amount to interference by the petitioner with his official duties and thereby constitutes an offence punishable under section 353 IPC. There is no allegation that the petitioner ever made a gesture or used criminal force to the annoyance of the third respondent. Of course, the third allegation of getting the third respondent transferred may amount to putting threat which is punishable under section 506 IPC, but it does not fall within the ambit of section 353. Further, there are no ingredients for attracting the offence under section 507 at all. Both the offences under sections 506 and 507 are non-cognizable and no investigation could have been undertaken without the permission of the Magistrate. Probably in order to obviate the necessity of taking permission from the Magistrate, the second respondent might have invoked the offence under section 353 IPC. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Surajkumar SatyabrathPal vs State of Maharashtra [2015 SCC OnlineBombay 2994] to garner support for his argument that there is no case for quashing FIR. The facts of this case clearly disclose that the offence under section 353 IPC was invoked and in the facts and circumstances of that case it was held that the assault as defined under section 351 was made out. This judgment is not applicable here. Even in Annexure-R9 there are no materials disclosing commission of offences under sections 353, 506 and 507 IPC. Therefore, if the petitioner is unnecessarily prosecuted for this offence, it is nothing but abuse of process of court. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a ground for quashing the FIR.
12. Another complaint of the petitioner is that he was not able to procure a copy of the FIR as it was not uploaded on the official website of the police department. In this regard it is necessary to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Youth Bar Association of India (supra) where certain guidelines are given by the Supreme Court to the police. It is not necessary to refer to
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR all the guidelines here. Though it is submitted by the Government Pleader that the FIRs are being uploaded on the official website of the police department, in order to emphasize the strict compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court given in the case of Youth Bar Association of India (supra), direction may be issued onceagain.
13. In the result, this writ petition succeeds. The FIR in Crime No. 95/2020 against the petitioner for the offences under sections 353, 506 and 507 of IPC is quashed. The Department of Home, Government of Karnataka, is hereby directed to upload every FIR registered in every police station across the State of Karnataka in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India and Another [(2016) 9 SCC 473].Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Karnataka State, and the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, for implementation."
8. As stated supra, in the instant case, perusal of the FIR, complaint, charge sheet material, statement of witnesses and document etc., will indicate that there is absolutely no material whatsoever to incriminate the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC and consequently, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court and this Court in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the view that continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20907 CRL.P No. 11372 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. In the result, the following:
i) The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed; and
ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.7912/2024 pending on the file of the 41st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28