Karnataka High Court
T. G. Ravi vs State Of Karnataka By on 14 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2190
CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10110 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
T.G. RAVI
S/O. GOPALAPPA T.V.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ADVOCATE
PRESENTLY GENERAL SECRETARY
THE ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION
BANGALORE
Digitally R/AT NO.SF 19, HMS COMPLEX
signed by
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY 2ND FLOOR, CUBBONPETE MAIN ROAD
Location:
High Court of BENGALURU - 560 002.
Karnataka
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISHKUMAR R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HALASURU GATE POLICE STATION
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2190
CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. MR. T. RAJAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NO. 133, MIG KHB COLONY
5TH BLOCK
KORAMANAGALA
BANGALORE - 560 095.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
(FILED U/S.528 BNNS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.25648/2021 AND
SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CR.NO.241/2003 BY HALASOORU
GATE POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 323, 324, 325, 506 READ WITH
SECTION 149 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2190
CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.25648/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 325, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri. Girishkumar R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. The complainant though served remains unrepresented even today.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and the 2nd respondent is the de-facto complainant. On an incident that happens on 09.06.2003, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.240/2003 by respondent No.1 on the score that several advocates were involved in a scuffle with the police on the said date. Another crime comes to be registered in Crime No.241/2003 pursuant to the statement made by the 2nd respondent on the same incident. The statement so made by -4- NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR the 2nd respondent states that the petitioner and several other advocates were involved in assaulting the complainant. The police conduct investigation in Crime No.241/2003 and file the charge sheet against the petitioner, which is now pending in C.C.No.25648/2018 before the concerned Court. The filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that none of the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325 or 506 of the IPC, as the case would be, are met in the case at hand, and that the other offences that are invoked against the petitioner arise from the same incident. He further submits that, for what has happened in the Court premises, in no way can the afore-quoted offences be met in the case at hand.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was involved in assaulting the complainant on the aforesaid date in the Court premises, and the offences alleged in the FIR and the chargesheet are clearly made against the petitioner, and therefore, no lenience should -5- NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR be shown, and the petitioner should be directed to face trial and come out clean in a full blown trial.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. An incident happening in the Court premises on 09.06.2003 leads respondent No.1 - police to register a crime in Crime No.240/2003. On the statement of the 2nd respondent recorded before the concerned Court, another crime comes to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.241/2003. The statement of respondent No.2 reads as follows:
" ೇ ೆ:
ೕ. . ಾಜ ಎ. . ೇಲು ದ ಯ , 37 ವಷ , ಾಸ ನಂ.133, ಎಂ.ಐ. . ೆ. ೆ . . ಾ!ೋ# 5$ೇ %ಾ&', ೋರಮಂಗಲ, %ೆಂಗಳ,ರು-95, -ೕನಂ.5530274.
$ಾನು .ೕ!ೆ / 0ರುವ 12ಾಸದ & ನನ3 ತಂ5ೆ 6ಾ7ಯವರ 8ೊ6ೆಯ & ಾಸ ಾ9ದು: ೊಂಡು, ಾ<=ಾರ >ಾಡ ೊಂಡು ೕವನ >ಾಡು/?ರು6ೆ?ೕ$ೆ. 1996ರ & %ೆಂಗಳ,ರು. ನಗರದ ಕು>ಾ =ಾ' ಾಸ ೕ !ೋಕ$ಾA ರವರ ಮಗ2ಾದ ರವರ 8ೊ6ೆಯ & ಮದು ೆBಾ7ತು ಮದು ೆBಾದ ನಂತರ 7 /ಂಗಳC >ಾತ ನನ3 ೆಂಡ/ ಮ$ೆಯ & ಸಂDಾರ >ಾE ೊಂEದ:ಳC. 7 /ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ೆFGೆGೆಂದು ನಮH >ಾವನ ಮ$ೆGೆ ೋದಳC ನಮH >ಾವನ ಮ$ೆಯ & ೆಣುJ ಮಗು ೆFGೆಯೂ ಆ7ತು. ೆFGೆBಾದ ನಂತರ 1998ರ & ನನ3 ೆಂಡ/ಯನು3 ಮ$ೆGೆ ಬರುವಂ6ೆ ಮತು? ನನ3 >ಾವನವFGೆ -6- NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR ಮಗಳನು3 ಕಳCM0 ೊಡುವಂ6ೆ ೇ 5ಾಗ ನಮH >ಾವನ ಮ$ೆಯವರು 1 ೋN0 ನನ3 ೆಂಡ/ಯನು3 ಕಳCM0 ೊಡ ಲ&. ಅಲ&5ೆ $ಾನು ಸಹ ದೂರ ಾQ ಮುRಾಂತರ ಮ$ೆGೆ ಬರಲು / 05ಾಗ ಆ ೆ # ಾಕF0 ಬರುವSNಲ& ಎಂದು / 0ದಳC ಈ M$ೆ3!ೆಯ & ನಮH >ಾವನ ಮ$ೆಯವFಗೂ ನಮಗೂ ಎರಡು ವಷ >ಾತುಕ6ೆ ಾ9ರುವSNಲ& $ಾನು 2001$ೇ ಏV W ನ & =ಾ X ೋY ನ & Restitution of Rights ಪ ಾರ ೇಸು ಆ9ರು6ೆ?ೕ$ೆ. ಸದF ೇ0 ನಂಬ ಎಂ.0 630/2001 ಆ9ರುತ?5ೆ. ಈ ೇ0Gೆ ೆಂಡ/ $ಾ<Bಾಲಯ ೆ[ ಬರು/?ರ ಲ&. ನನ3 $ಾ<Bಾಲಯ ೆ[ ಬರNದ: ಾರಣ ಮತು? 8ೊ6ೆ ಸಂDಾರ >ಾಡNದ:Fಂದ 1 ಾಹ ೋF \ಾ<X $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ & ೇಸು ಆ95ೆ ಸದF ೇ] ನಂ.1623/03 ಆ9ರುತ?5ೆ. ನನ3 ೆಂಡ/ ಪರ ಾ9 ವ^ೕಲರುಗ2ಾದ ೕ. ಾಮಬಬು, ಾಗೂ 3) ನಟ ಾಜ ಎಂಬುವರು ೇಸು ನ`ೆ0ದರು.
$ಾನು 1 ಾಹ 1aೆbೕದನ ೆ[ ೇಸು ಾ^ದ ನನ3 ೆಂEತ \ಾ<X ೋಟ ನ & ನನ3 Restitution of Rights ೇಸನು3 ಾ^ದರು. ೇಸ ನಂ.269/03 ಆ9ರುತ?5ೆ. ೇಸನು3 ಸಹ ೆಂಡ/ ಪರ ಾ9 .ೕಲ[ಂಡ ಜನ ವ^ೕಲರು ೇಸನು3 ನ`ೆಸು/?ದ:ರು.
ಇಂದು N$ಾಂಕ 9/06/2003 ರಂದು %ೆ Gೆd 10:45 ಗಂeೆGೆ .ೕಲ[ಂಡ ೇಸುಗ Gೆ ಾಜ ಾಗ \ಾ<X ೋY ಬ ಬಂದನು. ಅಷfರ &ವ^ೕಲ ಾದ ೕ.ಜ$ಾಧ ನ ರವರ ಸಹ ಹ/?ರ ಬಂNದ:ರು $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ ೇಸು ನ`ೆಸು/?ದ:ವS. ನಮH ವ^ೕಲರು ನನ3ನು3 $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ ಬ ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ೋ9 ನಮH ೇ0ನ ಬGೆd >ಾತ$ಾEದರು ಆಗ $ಾ<Bಾiೕಶರು Consultation Room ೋ9 ಬ#3 ಎಂದು / 0ದರು. $ಾವS ಅ &Gೆ ೋ5ಾಗ ನನ3 ೆಂಡ/ ಇರ ಲ& ಮ6ೆ? $ಾವS $ಾ<Bಾiೕಶರ ಬ ಬರು/?ರ%ೇ ಾದ ೆ ವ^ೕಲರುಗ2ಾದ ಕು>ಾ , ೕ. ಾk %ಾಬು ಾಗೂ ನಟ ಾlರವರ ಅ &mೕ ನಮH ವ^ೕಲರು ಕುಮರವFGೆ ಾಗೂ ೕ. ಾಮ%ಾಬು ೕಮ/.ರೂಪರವರು ಎ &5ಾ: ೆಂದು ೇ 5ಾಗ ಅವರುಗಳC ಅ & ಇ5ಾ: ೆ $ೋE ಎಂದು ೇ ದರು. $ಾನು ನಮH ವ^ೕಲFGೆ, ಅವರುಗಳ ಬಳC >ಾತ$ಾಡುವSದು $ಾ<Bಾiೕಶರು ಬ ೋ9 ಎಂದು / 0. $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ ಕು>ಾರ ನನ3 #ೕನು ಏನು ೇಳCವSದು ಅಂತ ನನ3 ಎಡ ೈಗ ಂದ ೊ`ೆದರು ಅಲ&5ೇ 1 ಾಹ 1aೆbೕದನ ೆ[ ಾ^N:ೕBಾ $ಾನು #ನGೇ ಏಣು ____ ರು6ೆ?ೕ$ೆ ಓದು $ೋEN:Bಾ, $ಾಶ >ಾಡು6ೆ?ೕ$ೆ ಎಂದು ____ ೊ`ೆಯಲು ಬಂದರು. ಆ ______ ತ`ೆದನು. $ಾಣು ತ`ೆ ನಟ ಾಜು ನನGೆ ೊ`ೆಯಲು ಬಂ5ಾಗ $ಾನು ತVq0 ೊಂ`ೆನು, ನನGೆ ೕಳ%ೇ ಾದ ಏಟು ಕು>ಾರ #Gೆ ತು? ನನ3 ವ^ೕಲರು ಗ!ಾ ೊಳ,rವSದು %ೇಡ ಎಂದು ನನ3ನು3 $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ ಒಳGೆ ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ೋದರು.
ಈ ಮೂರು ಜನ ವ^ೕಲರು ಈ ಆ ೊ ೕಶವನು3 $ೆನDಾ9ಟುf ೊಂಡು, ವ^ೕಲರುಗ Gೆ ಸುಳCr ಸುದು: ಹ t0 ವ^ೕಲರನು3 $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ5ೆ ಜ>ಾM0 $ಾ<Bಾಲಯ ೆ[ ನು9d0, ನನGೆ ೊ`ೆಯಲು ಪ ಯ/305ಾಗ $ಾ<Bಾiೕಶರು $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ ಕ!ಾಪವನು3 # &0, -7- NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR ನನ3ನನು ಅವರ ಕuೇFGೆ ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ೋ9 ಕೂF0 ೊಂಡು, vೕ ಸFGೆ ಮತು? ಇತ ೆ ಅi ಾFಗ Gೆ 1aಾರ ಮು f0ದರು. ಅಷfರ & Dೆಷ w $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ F Dಾx ರವರ ೈ ೋY F ಸf ಆದ ೕ.ಕ ೕ ರವರು ಾಗೂ ಇತ ೇ ವ^ೕಲರುಗಳ ಒಂದು ಮತು? .ೕಲ[ಂಡ 3 ಜನ ವ^ೕಲರು ಆತನನು3 ೊರGೆ E, Dಾ70 ಡು6ೆ?ೕ$ೆ ಎಂದು ಕೂGಾE ಗ!ಾeೆ >ಾಡು/?ದ:ರು. ಆ ಕೂಡ!ೇ vೕ ] ಅi ಾFಗಳC ಮತು? 0ಬtಂNಯವರು ಸyಳ ೆ[ ಬಂದರು. $ಾ<Bಾiೕರು ನನ3ನು3 vೕ ಸರ ವಶ ೆ[ ಒVq0ದರು. ತಮH ವಶ ೆ[ 6ೆGೆದು ೊಂಡರು ೊರಗ`ೆ ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬರು/?ರ%ೇ ಾದ ೆ $ಾ<Bಾ ಾಜ>ಾE0ದು:, 80 Fಂದ 100 ಜನ ವ^ೕಲರು vೕ ಸರನು3 %ೇN0 ನನGೆ ೈಗ ಂದ .ೕ!ೆ ಓ`ೆದು $ೋವSಂಟು >ಾEರು6ಾ? ೆ. vೕ ಸರು Dೆಷ $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ ಮುಂzಾಗದ & #ಂ/ದ: vೕ ] ೕ{ ನ & ಕೂF0 ೊಳrಲು ಕ ೆತಂ5ಾಗ $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ ಾಂ=ೆ&'w ಮುಂzಾಗದ & ಸು>ಾರು 800 Fಂದ 850 ಜನ ವ^ೕಲರುಗಳC DೇFದು:, ಅ & ವ^ೕಲರುಗಳC vೕ ಸರನ3 %ೇN0, vೕ ಸರನು3 ತ r ನನ3 ತ!ೆGೆ ಮುಖ ೆ[ ಮತು? ಕತು? ೈ ಾಲುಗ Gೆ 0 ಾ[ಪeೆf ೈಗ ಂದ ಇ fGೆ ಕಲು&ಗ ಂದ ೊ`ೆದು ರಕ?GಾಯಪE0ರು6ಾ? ೆ. ನನ3 ಶಟು ಬ#ಯ ಇವSಗಳನು3 ಹFದು ಾ^}ಂN >ಾEರು6ಾ? ೆ. $ಾನು ಆGಾGೆd $ಾ<Bಾಲಯ ೆ[ ಬರು/?ದು: ೆಲವS ವ^ೕಲರುಗಳನು3 $ಾನು $ೋEದು:, ಅವರುಗಳ ೆಸರು ನನGೆ Gೊ/?ದು:, $ಾನು $ೋEರು6ೆ?$ೆ. ಅವರುಗಳ ೆಸರುಗಳC, 1) ಪರ.ೕ~, 2) ಐ6ಾಳ. 3) ಕು>ಾ , 4) ನಟ ಾಜ, 5) ಅಶ•ಥ$ಾ ಾಯಣ, 6) ಚಂದ ಪq, 7) ರಂಗ$ಾಥ, 8) 1ಶ•$ಾಥ, 9) ಸುಬ ಮQ, 10) ಾಜು,
11) ಹFೕ~, 12) ಉದಯ, 13) ೕ# ಾಸ, 14) ರಘ„, 15) ಾಮ%ಾಬು 16) ಅ...ೆ†ೕಕ ಇತ ೆಗ2ೆಲ&ರೂ ನನGೆ MGಾdಮುGಾd ೊ`ೆದು GಾಯGೊ 0ದು:, ಅಲ&5ೇ vೕ ] ೕ{ನ eಾಪನು3 ಹFದು ಾ^ ಚಕ ಗಳ Gಾ ಯ$ಾ3 ಟುf ೕಪನು3 $ಾಶಪE0ರು6ಾ? ೆ. ನನGೆ ಆಸq6ೆ Gೆ ಇಲಂಜ >ಾE0 ನನGೆ ೊ`ೆದು ನನGೆ ೊ`ೆದು GಾಯGೊ 0ರುವವರ 1ರುದ‡ ಾನೂನು ಕ ಯಮ ೈGೊಳr%ೇ ೆಂದು ೋರು6ೆ?ೕ$ೆ. ಈ ಗ!ಾeೆ 11-30 ಗಂeೆ7ಂದ 13-30 ಗಂeೆಯವFಎ ನ`ೆNರು6ೆ?.
N$ಾಂಕ 19/06/03 ರಂದು 3:45 V.ಎಂ ಗಂeೆGೆ ೇ ೆ ಪ`ೆದು .ನಂ.241/03 ರಂ6ೆ ಕಲಂ 143, 147, 323, 324, 506 (©) 427 gÉ/« 149 D¥ï ಐ V 0 ಆ9ರುತ?5ೆ."
The police, after conducting investigation in Crime No.241/2003, file the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in Column No.7, reads as follows:
"PÀ®A 143, 147, 323, 324, 325, 506 ¸À»vÀ 149, ¨Á.zÀA.¸ÀA.20 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR ¢£ÁAPÀ 9-6-2003 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11-30 jAzÀ 1-30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è %ೆಂಗಳ,ರು ನಗರ. C®¸ÀÆgÀÄUÉÃmï ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ¸ÀgÀºÀzÁÝzÀ ºÀ¼É ¥ÉÆøïÖ C¦üøï gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¹n ¹«¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸É±À£ïì £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ £É®ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PËAlÄA©PÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁAiÀÄzÀ° JA.¹.£ÀA.630:2001 gÀ°è ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß JzÀÄgÁ½ (ºÉAqÀw) PËlÄA©PÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÁUÀÄwÛ®èªÉAzÀÄ 1£Éà CgÉÆæUÉ CPÉëæ¹zÀ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ F ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÁ®A 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ಇತರ ¸ÀĪÀiÁರು 250 Fಂದ 300 ಜನ ಯುವ ವ^ೕಲgÀÄUÀ2 ೆ, ಂNGೆ ಸ>ಾನ ಆ5ೇಶ Nಂದ ಗುA¥ÀÄ ಕ f ೊಂಡು, ಪ Šಾನ ೌಟುಂ ಕ $ಾ<Bಾ ಲಂತುದ & DಾŒ -1 ೕ •ಾಜನ ಕವFGೆ PÉÊಗ ಂದ ೊ`ೆದು, ಾಲುಗ ಂದ ಒದು, GಾAiÀÄGೊ 0 $ಾ<Bಾಲಯದ &ದ, ಅ¯ÉägÁ Gಾಜ£ÀÄß ೊ`ೆದ ಾ^ $ಾ<BಾNೕಶರು ಕರ ತು ೊಳCrವ qÀAiÀiÁ¸ï .ೕ!ೆ ಹ/? ಕು} ಗಳನು3 DಾE. DಾŒ - FೕEಂŽ §Ä' ....ನನ3 ಮುFದು, ' ಾ^ 0¼Éî ºÉÆ`ೆಯು6ಾ?, 5ಾಂದ!ೆ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ಅನಂತರ ¥ÉmÁÖVzÀÝ DಾŒ -1 ರವರ£ÀÄß }^6ೆwGೆ ಆಸ•6ೆ Gೆ ಕ ೆzÉÆAiÀÄå®Ä £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ಸಂ^ೕಣ ದ ಉತ?ರ N^[ನ ಅವರಣದ & #ಂ/ದ, ೕಪ ನಂ PÉಏ -01 f- 1304 gÀ°è PÀÆj¹zÁUÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÁ®A 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ EvÀgÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 800 jAzÀ 850 CªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÉÆåÃUÉ AiÀÄĪÀ ªÀÄQÃgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ ಕ f ೊಂಡು ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÉʬÄAzÀ UÀÄ¢Ý PÁ°¤AzÀ MzÀÄÝ, PÀ®Äè EnÖUɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÝ, ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ J-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ೈಮು•f¬ÄAzÀ ದವ`ೆಯ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÀ®è£ÀÄß qÁåªÉÄÃeï ªÀiÁr ¨sÁj UÁAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J12 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ «ªÁºÀ «ZÉÑÃzÀ£ÀPÉÌ PÉøÀÄ ºÁQ¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ, ¤£Àß PÀÄlÄAlªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀð £Á±ÀªÁqÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ¥Áæt ¨sÀAiÀÄ GAlĪÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Éưøï f¥ï £À°è PÉJ-01-f-1304 gÀ°è D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÀPÁðj f¦UÉ dRA GAlĪÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼É®ègÀÆ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀð C¥sÀgÁzÀ J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
(SIC)
8. The issue now would be, when the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, whether it would amount to the alleged offences or otherwise. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 323, -9- NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR 324 325 and 506 of the IPC, being the primary offences inter alia.
9. For an offence to become punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, the ingredients as obtaining under Sections 319 and 321 should be necessarily met. The statement of the 2nd respondent or the chargesheet so filed are not indicative of the fact that the petitioner had assaulted respondent No.2 to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC.
The interpretation of Section 324 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.
9.1. The Apex Court, in the case of ABHISHEK SAXENA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,1has held as follows:
".... .... ....
8. As the High Court did not endeavour to consider whether the chargesheet submitted showed prima facie case under Sections 323, 384 and 406, IPC for voluntarily causing hurt, for extortion and for criminal breach of trust, we think it inevitable to undertake such a consideration as in the facts and circumstances while called upon to exercise the power under Section 482, CrPC the High Court was legally bound to see if allegations/accusations constitute any offence or not. As relates the alleged commission of offence under Section 323, IPC besides the bald statement of the second respondent-complainant 'when I asked those 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1711
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR people about my daughter, they beat up me' no other material whatsoever is on record. In short, there is no material on record to support the alleged causation of hurt. Though the first respondent filed a counter affidavit nothing is stated/produced in regard to the said alleged offence.
.... .... ....
10. As noted earlier, except the statement that 'they beat up me' by the complainant no material whatsoever is available on record in regard to the commission of the said offence. The incident allegedly occurred on 12.06.2016. In the recorded statement of the second respondent-complainant or in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent there is not even a whisper that after the incident she went to a doctor or underwent any kind of treatment. Needless to say, that there is no statement - at least that injury report was prepared. In this context, it is also to be seen in respect of the incident, the FIR got registered only on 04.09.2016, that too much after the filing of petition No. 13/2016 by the appellant herein. Above all, as noted earlier, basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 323, IPC is lacking in the chargesheet."
(Emphasis supplied) 9.2. The Apex Court, in the case of MADHUSHREE DATTA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
Section 323 IPC
17. To determine what are the ingredients of the offence under Section 323 IPC, it is important to read Sections 319, 321 and 323 together.
22025 SCC OnLine SC 165
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR
18. What emerges on a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions is that, for a conviction under Section 323 IPC, there must be a voluntary act of causing hurt i.e. bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, to another person. Therefore, it is essential that actual hurt is caused.
19. Turning to the facts of the case, the complaint merely states that the complainant was forcibly ejected from the Company's office by security personnel, who allegedly attempted to assault, physically harass, and threaten her with dire consequences. Therefore, the complaint does not directly attribute any voluntary act of causing hurt to the complainant by any of the two accused.
20. Furthermore, the charge-sheet reiterates the similar version set forth in the complaint, stating that the complainant was forcibly thrown out of the office by the security personnel. While the actions of the security personnel could potentially constitute an offence of causing hurt, they are neither named in the complaint nor figure as accused in the charge-sheet. Having said that, the appellants cannot be said to have foreseen or anticipated the actions of the security personnel in such a manner that would render them co-perpetrators of the offence. Hence, there is no basis for the prosecution to set forth the concept of liability of the employer or for the overt acts of its employees in this matter.
21. In the light of the abovementioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the ingredients of offence under Section 323 IPC have not been made out, prima facie, either in the complaint or the charge-sheet."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments holds that for an offence to become punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, the accused must cause hurt or grievous hurt
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR as per the ingredients obtaining in Sections 319 and 321 of the IPC. The Apex Court further holds that merely stating that certain persons beat up the complainant would not become an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. With there being no titter of allegations against the petitioner in the 2nd respondent's statement or the chargesheet or a would certificate to demonstrate the hurt caused by the petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner.
10. The next offence is the one punishable under Section 324 of the IPC i.e., voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The interpretation of Section 324 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court, in the case of ANUJ SINGH ALIAS RAMANUJ SINGH ALIAS SETH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR3, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
20. It is a well-known fact that the term "hurt" simply means performing an act which leads to physical pain, injury or any disease to a person. At 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 497
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR times, hurt may be caused voluntarily or it can by caused by using dangerous weapons or mean. A person will be liable to have caused hurt voluntarily through dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 IPC which reads as under:--
"324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
21. To establish an offence under Sec 324 IPC, the presence of following ingredients is a must which are as follows:--
1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and
2. Such hurt was caused:
a. By any instrument used for shooting, cutting or stabbing, or any other instrument likely to cause death, or b. By fire or other heated instruments, or c. By poison or other corrosive substance, or d. By any explosive substance, or e. By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to swallow, inhale, or receive through blood, or f. By an animal.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR
22. When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of three years, or with fine.
23. In the case at hand, it is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the two appellants have caused hurt on the body of the informant, PW-8 by using firearm on account of an altercation which took place between the appellants and the informant PW-8. It also stands corroborated from the evidence of the prosecution witness that there existed previous enmity between the parties due to a land dispute and the same can be perceived from their acts. Thus, the charge of Section 324 IPC stands established against the two appellants. Once the charge against the appellants under Section 324 IPC of voluntarily causing injuries by firearm, which is a dangerous weapon stands established, they cannot escape the punishment for using arms prescribed by Section 27 of the Arms Act."
(Emphasis supplied) If the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-
quoted judgment is pitted against the facts of the case at hand, what would unmistakably emerge is that none of the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC are met. Whether a stone is a weapon likely to cause death has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of MATHAI v. STATE OF KERALA4, wherein it is held as follows:
".... .... ....
16. The expression "any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death"
4(2005) 3 SCC 260
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR [Ed. : Section 326] has to be gauged taking note of the heading of the section. What would constitute a "dangerous weapon" would depend upon the facts of each case and no generalisation can be made.
17. The heading of the section provides some insight into the factors to be considered. The essential ingredients to attract Section 326 are : (1) voluntarily causing a hurt; (2) hurt caused must be a grievous hurt; and (3) the grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means. As was noted by this Court in State of U.P. v. Indrajeet [(2000) 7 SCC 249 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1338] there is no such thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for committing murder or for that matter a hurt. Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually. As noted above, the evidence of the doctor (PW
5) clearly shows that the hurt or the injury that was caused was covered under the expression "grievous hurt" as defined under Section 320 IPC. The inevitable conclusion is that a grievous hurt was caused. It is not that in every case a stone would constitute a dangerous weapon.It would depend upon the facts of the case. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that in some provisions e.g. Sections 324 and 326 the expression "dangerous weapon" is used. In some other more serious offences the expression used is "deadly weapon" (e.g. Sections 397 and 398). The facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, would throw light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not. That would determine whether in the case Section 325 or Section 326 would be applicable.
18. In the instant case considering the size of the stone which was used, as revealed by material on record, it cannot be said that a dangerous weapon was used. Therefore, the conviction is altered to Section 325 IPC. No hard-and-fast rule can be applied for assessing a proper sentence and a long passage of time cannot always be a determinative factor so far as sentence is concerned. It is not in dispute that a major portion of the sentence awarded has been suffered by the appellant. On
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR the peculiar facts of the case we restrict it to the period already undergone."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment juxtaposes Sections 324 and 325 of the IPC and holds that the size and sharpness of the stone would determine whether the stone would become a dangerous weapon, and whether the stone is likely to cause grievous hurt. The allegation in the 2nd respondent's statement is that bricks were thrown at him.
There is no wound certificate or any other material which would show that the bricks thrown at the 2nd respondent would become a dangerous weapon or cause grievous hurt to the 2nd respondent punishable under Sections 324 and 325 of the IPC.
Therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 325 of the IPC would also tumble down.
11. What would now remain is the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. For an offence to be punishable under Section 506 of the IPC, the ingredients as obtaining in Section 503 of the IPC are required to be met. The Apex Court, in the case of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF UTTAR
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR PRADESH,5 while considering what would become an offence under Section 506 of the IPC, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
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.
.... .... ....
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."
(Emphasis supplied) None of the ingredients of Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC, as stated in the afore-quoted judgment, are found either in the statement or in the charge sheet. The other offences 5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR have sprung only from the aforesaid incident, which is inherently improbable.
12. In that light, notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings have travelled to some extent, permitting further proceedings to continue would become an abuse of the process of the law and would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL6, wherein it is 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 the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given 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 6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2024 HC-KAR 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.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2190 CRL.P No. 10110 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.25648/2018 pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24