Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Ghouse vs State Of Karnataka By on 11 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8596
CRL.P No. 8377 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. 8377 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED GHOUSE
S/O LATE MOHAMMAD SARDAR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
2. MOHAMMED SHAFII
S/O LATE MOAHAMMAD SARDAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARE
Digitally
R/AT NO.11, 1ST FLOOR,
signed by
SANJEEVINI J 20TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
KARISHETTY
Location: High BTM 1ST STAGE,
Court of
Karnataka MADIVALA
BANGALORE 560 068.
3. ASIF SHARIFF
S/O LATE ALTAF SHARIF SAB
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8596
CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. JANAB ASGAR SHARIFF
S/O LATE ALTAF SHARIF SAB
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
PETITIONER NO.3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT NO.43, VP MAIN ROAD,
OLD MADIVALA,
BENGALURU- 560 068.
5. JANAB S YUSUF SAAB
S/O AMEER JAN SAAB
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8, 2nd MAIN,
4TH CROSS, NIRANJANA APTS,
BTM 1st STAGE,
BANGALORE 560 068.
6. BADRUDDIN SIRAJ
S/O HUNNOOR SAAB
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT 6th CROSS, 20th MAIN,
BTM 1st STAGE,
MADIVALA,
BANGALORE 560 068.
7. SYED HAKEEN AHMED
S/O SYED AHMED
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8596
CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.34, 20th MAIN ROAD,
BTM 1st STAGE,
MADIVALA,
BANGALORE 560 068.
8. MOHAMMED KHALANDAR SHAH
S/O ANWAR ALAM
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31/4, 3rd FLOOR,
4th CROSS, 9th MAIN,
NEW GURAPPAN PALYA,
BENGALURU 560 0029.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. DIVYA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BY MADIVALA POLICE STATION,
MADIVALA SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:8596
CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. ANJUMAN AL ARFATH EDUCATION TRUST
REPT BY ITS FOUNDER,
TRUSTEE AND SECRETARY
SRI.SHAIK FAREED
S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR SAHEB,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.45, 5TH C CROSS,
20TH MAIN, BTM 1st STAGE,
BENGALURU 560 068.
AND
JOINT SECRETARY
SRI. NAYAZ PASHA
S/O ABDUL KHALEEL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.53, 5th CROSS,
20th MAIN, BTM 1st STAGE,
BENGALURU 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA.,HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNNS)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.327/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE C PENDING BEFORE THE
XXXIX ACMM AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:8596
CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.327/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Smt. Divya K., appearing for the petitioners, and the learned HCGP Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 - complainant though served long ago remains unrepresented even as on date.
3. On 07.01.2026, this Court had passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for petitioners.
Awaiting representation of the respondent- complainant, as a last chance, list this matter on 28.01.2026.
Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing."
On 07.01.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent-complainant. The matter was directed to be listed on 28.01.2026. The matter is listed today. Even today -6- NC: 2026:KHC:8596 CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024 HC-KAR there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2- complainant.
4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 8, and respondent No.2 - complainant is a Trustee and Secretary of Anjuman Al Arfath Education Trust. The petitioners are said to be the office bearers of the said trust. A private complaint comes to be registered against these petitioners invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C on 11.04.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 417, 419, 420, 463, 464, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation and which becomes a crime in Crime No.201/2023. The police conduct investigation and file the charge sheet, not for the aforesaid glorified offences, but only for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that even the allegations which were alleged against the petitioners in the crime stage would not -7- NC: 2026:KHC:8596 CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024 HC-KAR bring out the ingredients of the offences so alleged. Learned counsel would seek to project that accused No.1 had instituted a civil suit in OS.No.576/2023 against the complainant seeking permanent injunction, and once the notice was served in the said suit, the complainant registers the subject private complaint against the petitioners. Therefore, it was an act of wreaking vengeance against these petitioners for having registered the civil suit in which notice was issued.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are found in the allegations in the case at hand. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and have perused the material on record.
8. The petitioners and respondent No.1 - complainant belong to the same trust. A suit for permanent injunction is -8- NC: 2026:KHC:8596 CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024 HC-KAR instituted by petitioner No.1/accused No.1 in O.S. No.576/2023 against the complainant seeking to restrain from entering into the trust. Notice was issued in the said suit and objections were directed to be filed to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, filed before the Civil Court. Immediately thereafter springs the subject complaint on 11.04.2023. The subject complaint was made before the learned Magistrate, who refers the matter for investigation under 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The reference leads to the registration of the aforesaid crime. The crime leads to investigation. The investigation leads the Police to file a charge sheet, as observed, not for all the glorified offences, but for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows:
" ೇ ನ ಸಂ ಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ:
ಇ ೇ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ ಮ ಾಳ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ"#$ೆ ೇ%ರುವ ಗಂ$ೋ() ಸಕ+, ಬ. ಮ ೕ/ - ಇಉಮ1 2ಾರೂ3 ಎಂಬ 5ೆಸ%ನ ಮ ೕ" ಇದು#, ಸದ% ಮ ೕ"ಯ ಉಸು ಾ% ಮತು ಹಣ ಾ ನ :;ಾರ ಾ< ಾ -1 ಮತು ಆ ೋ>ಗಳ ನಡು ೆ ಈ Aಂ"Bಂದಲೂ ತ$ಾ ೆ ಇದು#, "Dಾಂಕ : 17/02/2023 ರಂದು ೆ.$ೆ,, ಸುEಾರು 11-00 ಗಂFೆಯ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಾ -4 %ಂದ ಾ -10 ರವ ೊಂ"$ೆ ಸದ% ಮ ೕ"ಯ ಬ. 5ೋ< ಮ ೕ"ಯ ಹಣ ಾ ನ ವGವ5ಾರದ ಬ$ೆH IೇಕJ ೇ. ಾಗ ಎ-1 %ಂದ ಎ-8ರ ವ ೆ<ನ ಆ ೋ>ಗಳK ಾ -1 ಮತು ಾ -4 %ಂದ ಾ -10 ರವರುಗ.$ೆ ಅ ಾಚG ಶಬ#ಗ.ಂದ ೈದು, Oೕವ ೆದ% ೆ 5ಾPರುವQದು ಈವ ೆ<ನ ತBRೆSಂದ ದೃಢಪVWರುತ ೆ."-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:8596 CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024 HC-KAR A perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would clearly indicate that it was an abuse of process of the law by the complainant for having instituted the complaint for several offences including cheating, forgery, as the case would be, while the charge sheet rests the crimes to offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. Even the said offences cannot be laid against these petitioners for the simple reason that they do not hold the ingredients as necessary under Section 503 of the IPC. The Apex Court, in the case of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
Sections 503, 504 and 506 IPC
25. Chapter XXII IPC relates to criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:
"503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
Illustration 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8596 CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8596 CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024 HC-KAR
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
29. Section 504 IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised self-control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender.
30. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504 IPC, the 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
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8596 CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024 HC-KAR intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504 IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai [King Emperor v. ChunnibhaiDayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78] , a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:
"To constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds."
(emphasis supplied)
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
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8596 CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024 HC-KAR 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)
9. In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the afore- quoted judgment, permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in CC.No.327/2024, pending before the XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed qua the petitioners.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8596 CRL.P No. 8377 of 2024 HC-KAR
(iii) The observations made in the course of the order would not come in the way of the proceedings in the aforesaid civil suit.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34