Karnataka High Court
Sri. Taha Husain vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 06.06.2025
Pronounced on : 10.06.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12290 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI TAHA HUSAIN
S/O. SRI KHALID MEHEBOOB,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
SIRAJ LAYOUT,
SHIKHARIPALYA,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 106.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEVARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. MS. NIKITHA ANJANA IYER
D/O. BAMARAVATHI IYER,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
SIRAJ LAYOUT, SHIKARIPALYA,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 106.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2022
PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN C.C.NO.13477/2022 BY TAKING
COGNIZANCE U/S 190(1)(b) OF THE CR.P.C. 1973, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506, 509 OF IPC AS PER
ANNEXURE-A; 2) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS
PENDING BEFORE THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN C.C.NO.13477/2022 AS ABUSE
OF PROCESS OF LAW AS PER ANNEXURE-B.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/accused is before this Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.13477 of 2022 registered for offences
3
punishable under Sections 428, 429, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC
and pending before the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal,
Bengaluru Rural District.
2. Heard Sri G. Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1. The complainant though
served long ago remained unrepresented.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
At the heart of this criminal litigation lies a wayward
pet feline, named Daisy:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant and accused is the
petitioner, who stays in the adjacent apartment complex. The 2nd
respondent registers a complaint on 1-02-2022 alleging that the
domesticated cat by name 'Daisy' went missing and it was a case of
kidnapping. It is her further allegation that the cat was within the
premises of the accused, and had been wrongfully confined. It is
further alleged that due to kidnapping of her cat, she underwent
unnecessary stress and emotional trauma due to the act of the
4
accused/petitioner. The narration in the complaint is that the cat is
an animal and no cruelty can be meted out to an animal which
becomes an important issue of animal cruelty. As the cat was
taken care of like her own child, this becomes a crime in Crime
No.36 of 2022 for offences punishable under the aforementioned
provisions. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet
against the petitioner dropping offences under Sections 428 and
429 of the IPC, but retaining offences under Sections 504, 506 and
509 of the IPC. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the
petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel Sri G.Devaraj appearing for the
petitioner would contend that the cat of the complainant, was
jumping from house to house, through windows in the apartment
complex. It was staying nowhere. It may have come to the house
of the petitioner and jumped to another house. The CCTV footage
that was handed over to the Police clearly demonstrated that the
cat was jumping from one window to another. It never stayed in
the premises of the petitioner. The complainant comes and enquires
about the cat. In clear words the petitioner had told her why would
5
he keep the cat in his premises. This has enraged the complainant,
goes before the jurisdictional Police and registers a complaint for
the offences punishable for criminal intimidation, breach of peace
and insulting the modesty of a woman. He would contend that it is
ununderstandable as to whether these offences would spring from a
missing cat.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor though seek
to defend the act of filing the charge sheet, would admit that it was
a frivolous case that was projected by the complainant and the
complainant does not appear before the Court to answer the
contentions. He would leave the decision to the Court.
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 petitioner and the complainant being neighbours along
with several others, is a matter of record. The complainant claims
to be the proud owner of a cat named Daisy. One fine day it goes
6
missing, leaping from one window to another. It has jumped out
from the complainant's house, to neighbouring houses including the
house of the accused. It appears that the complainant had asked
about the cat getting into the house of the accused. The accused
has clearly indicated that no cat entered his house. A complaint
comes to be registered against the petitioner/accused before the
Hebbagodi Police Station. Since the entire issue has triggered from
the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice it. It reads as
follows:
"To
The Inspector of police,
Hebbagodi Police Station,
Electronic city, Bangalore.
Respected sir,
I, Anjana residing in electronic city, I am lodging a
complaint at the SPCA with the docket no AH00449364. This is a
clear case of kidnapping my pet cat and wrongfully detaining the
cat within the premises of Taha and Zaveria and his family.
Animal cruelty of any kind including kidnapping and holding a
pet under wrongful custody is a punishable crime under IPC
sections 428 and 429.
I have undergone needless stress and emotional
trauma since my pet cat was kidnapped by these
neighbours. This is harassment and intimidation and
punishable under IPC Sections 504, 506 and 509.
All animals are protected by the PCA Act and any force of
misusing the life of an animal is a punishable offence, As per
7
Karnataka Police Act Section 93, it is the duty of the police to
give equal importance to animal cruelty issues too.
I am afraid for the safety of my pet cat Daisy who I
have taken care of like my own child, she is being
wrongfully and forcibly retained by the neighbours and I
demand that the police get my pet safely back to me.
I have the right to file FIR for such matter as it is my
right and I request the police help me exercise my rights as a
citizen of India.
The constitution of India 5(A)(g) clearly states that it is
our duty to show compassion to all living things.
should anything happen to my pet cat under the
wrongful custody should I be further harassed in any way
or my other pets, friends and family face any untoward
consequence as a result of this complaint, I shall hold the
police the All Government departments and the accused
Taha and Zaveria and his family responsible.
Kindly do the needful to get my cat back to me safely at
any cost. If that requires in FIR so be it.
Thanking You,
Your's Sincerely,
Nikitha Anjana lyer
D/o Bamaravathi lyer
Phone no: 8431802284
Age: 41 years
Caste: Brahmin
Work: MNC
Address:
83, 2nd cross, Siraj Layout,
Shikaripalya, Electronic City Phase I,
Bengaluru, Karnataka- 560 100
Taha: 7022639427
Zaveria: 8792347360
Mother of Taha: 9845114890.
(Emphasis added)
8
"¢£ÁAPÀ 01-02-2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 5.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ¦gÁå¢zÁgÀgÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ ºÀdgÁV ¤ÃrzÀ
zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ oÁuÁ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.36/2022 PÀ®A-428, 429, 504, 506, 509 IPC jÃvÁå ¥ÀæPÀgÀt
zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
It is the case of the complainant that it was a clear case of
kidnapping of her pet cat and wrongfully detaining it within the
premises of the petitioner, due to which, the complainant has
underwent needless stress and emotional trauma. Therefore, the
complaint comes to be registered. The complaint becomes a crime
in FIR No.36 of 2022, for what offence is shocking, it is for 504, 506
and 509 of the IPC - 509 in particular, insulting the modesty of a
woman.
8. If the contents of the complaint are seen, it shocks the
conscience of the Court as to how the jurisdictional Police could
have registered the complaint, as there is no offence indicated in
the complaint, except missing cat and alleged wrongful custody of
the cat in the house of the accused. Safety of her cat, which the
complainant contends that she was taking care like a child, forms
the fulcrum of the complaint. The entire police machinery gets
involved in the case of a missing cat, record statements of
neighbours, see CCTV footage and find nothing but file a charge
9
sheet dropping the offences under Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC,
but retaining the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the
IPC. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column
No.17 reads as follows:
"17. ನಂ 36/2022 ಪ ಕರಣದ ಸಂ ಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ : ಕಲಂ 504, 506, 509 L¦¹ (ಕಲಂ 428
& 429 ಕಲಂಗಳನು ಆ ೋಪ ಾ ೕ ಾಗದ ಾರಣ ೋ ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ ಯ"# ೈ ಡ&ಾ' ೆ)
()ಾಂಕ : 20-01-2022 ರಂದು *ೆಳ+ೆ, 11-30 ಗಂ-ೆ ಸಮಯದ"# ತಮ0 ಘನ )ಾ23ಾಲಯದ
4ಾ25+ೆ ೇ6ದ 7ೆಬ9+ೋ: ;"ೕ< =ಾ>ೆಯ ಸರಹ ಾ@ದ ಅ)ೇಕB ಾಲೂ#ಕು, CಗD 7ೋಬE,
FGಾ6 Hಾಳ2 +ಾ ಮದ, I ಾJ ಬKಾವ>ೆಯ"#ರುವ ಾ 1 ರವರು ಈ ೋ ಾ ೋಪ>ಾ ಪ ಾಲಂ
ನಂ 12 ರ"# ಕಂಡ ಎ1 ರವರ ಮ)ೆಯ ಬE 7ೋ' ಾವO ಾPದ@ *ೆಕQನು ೊಡುವಂ ೆ ೇಳ&ಾ' ಆ
ಸಮಯದ"# ಾ 1 ರವ6+ೆ ಅ4ಾ2ಚ2 ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ *ೈದು, &ೈಂ'ಕ ಸ)ೆ Sಾ: ಇ)ೊ U0 ನಮ0
ಮ)ೆಯ ಬE ಬಂದ ೆ Hಾ t ¸À»vÀ ಡುವO(ಲ# ಎಂದು Hಾ ಣ *ೆದ6 ೆ 7ಾPರುವOದು ತVGೆWಂದ
ಧೃಡಪ ರು ೆ.
ಆದ@6ಂದ UೕಲQಂಡ ಆ ೋ5ಗಳ Uೕ&ೆ UೕಲQಂಡ ಕಲಂ 6ೕ ಾ2 ºÉÆj¹zÀ
ೋ ಾ ೋಪ>ಾ ಪ ."
The summary of the charge sheet has retrospective
embellishments, which even the complaint did not contain. The
charge sheet narrates that abuses were hurled and sexual actions
were made against the complainant. This was not even uttered in
the complaint, but they form part of the charge sheet. It is then the
petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
10
9. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under
Sections 504, 506 and 509. Sections 504 and 506 read as follows:
"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.
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."
Sections 504 and 506 have their ingredients in Section 503. The
Apex Court holds that hurling of abuse would not amount to offence
under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The Apex Court in the case
of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF U.P.1 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951
11
"SECTIONS 503, 504 AND 506 OF THE IPC
24. Chapter XXII of the IPC relates to Criminal
Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:--
"Section 503. Criminal intimidation. --Whoever
threatens another with any injury to his person,
reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of
any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to
cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do
any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to
do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as
the means of avoiding the execution of such threat,
commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of
any deceased person in whom the person threatened is
interested, is within this section.
Illustration
A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from
prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is
guilty of criminal intimidation."
25. Section 504 reads thus:--
"Section 504. Intentional insult with intent to
provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally
insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person,
intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation
will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit
any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both."
26. Section 506 reads thus:--
"Section 506. Punishment for criminal
intimidation. --Whoever commits, the offence of
criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both;
12
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous
hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire,
or to cause an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity
to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, or with fine, or with both."
27. An offence under Section 503 has following
essentials:--
1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom
that person is interested.
2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which
that person is legally entitled to do as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat.
28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates
intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking
such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally
insulting a person 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
13
commit any offence having exercised self-control or
having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In
judging whether particular abusive language is attracted
by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the
ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the
abusive language used and not what the complainant
actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool
temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary
general nature of the abusive language that is the test for
considering whether the abusive language is an
intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to
commit a breach of the peace and not the particular
conduct or temperament of the complainant.
29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence,
may not amount to an intentional insult within the
meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the
necessary element of being likely to incite the person
insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence
and the other element of the accused intending to
provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the
peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to
commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive
language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts
and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a
general proposition that no one commits an offence
under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive
language against the complainant. In 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, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind
calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and
say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken
by angry words as well as deeds."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes
it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation.
Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it
14
must be established that the accused had an intention to
cause alarm to the complainant.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more
particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in
the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to
have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The
allegations with respect to the offence punishable under
Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a different
perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is
that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What
exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the
FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above,
constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that
there should have been an act or conduct amounting to
intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive
words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order
to decide whether the use of those words amounted to
intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not
possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is
present."
(Emphasis supplied)
If the allegations against the petitioner in the complaint and in the
charge sheet are considered on the bedrock of the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, not even a titter of
ingredient of offence under Section 504 or 506 of the IPC is found
in the case at hand.
10. The other offence is the one punishable under Section
509. Section 509 of the IPC reads as follows:
15
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the
modesty of a woman.--Whoever, intending to insult the
modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or
gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or
sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be
seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such
woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years, and also with fine."
Section 509 punishes one who seeks to outrage the modesty of a
woman. Whether this provision would get attracted to the
ingredients of the complaint is a mystery. All that the complainant
narrates is about her cat named Daisy. The cat named Daisy
appears to have driven every one crazy and even the criminal
justice system. The Police ought not to have entertained the
complaint, which did not indicate any cognizable offence at the
outset. As a matter of fact, the complaint does not even indicate a
non-cognizable offence. But, the Police entertain the complaint
ostensibly, for extraneous reasons. Plethora of cases are filed
before the Court complaining that the Police are not entertaining
the complaint and seek a direction to register the complaint by
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. But, here for a
missing cat and no other offence or kidnapping of the cat, or no
other cognizable offence, FIR is registered only to assuage the
16
feelings of the complainant who is said to have been distressed
because the cat has leaped from one window to another.
11. It is not merely the present prosecution warrants
judicial censure, it is the symptomatic misuse of criminal
process, where hurt feelings or robust grievances
masquerade as legal wrongs. If such frivolous grievances
are allowed to blossom into a full fledged criminal trial, it
would be nothing but wasting of precious judicial time and
more gravely, diverting police resources from genuine
grievances. If proceedings of this nature are permitted to
continue, it would be a travesty and putting a premium on
the litigious persistence of the complainant and reducing the
criminal justice system to conduct a trial, in a melodrama
woven around a cat.
12. This is a fit case for not only quashing the proceedings,
but reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings for
malicious prosecution against the complainant. The complainant
having chosen not to appear, leaves unanswered the serious nature
17
of her false assertions. In the light of the complainant not being
represented herself or through an Advocate, this Court holds its
hands in permitting the petitioner to initiate proceedings for
malicious prosecution. The Police too, deserve stern
admonishing, for allowing themselves to be swept into
whimsical pursuit of justice for a cat named Daisy. Cases of
this nature should serve as a gentle, but firm reminder, to all the
stakeholders in the criminal justice system that the law is a
solemn instrument and not a toy to be played at the altar of
personal pique.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C. No.13477 of 2022 pending before the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp/CT:MJ