Karnataka High Court
Sri Sathish K T vs State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2397
CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9907 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI SATHISH K T
S/O THIMMAPPA
AGED 36 YEARS
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
R/AT NO 03, KUMUDAVATH BLOCK
VINAYAKA THEATRE
MYSORE ROAD, COTTONPETE
BENGALURU - 560053
PERMANENT R/AT NO 10,
D MALLAPURA, DODDAGATTA
CHITRADURGA - 577527.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
N
CCB BENGALURU CITY POLICE STATION
Location:
HIGH BENGALURU - 562159
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REP BY THE LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HCK, BENGALURU - 01.
2. SRI LAKSHMAN NIMBARGI
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED 37 YEARS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
STATE CRIME RECORD BUREAU
M S BUILDING
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2397
CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024
NEAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
OFFICE BENGALURU - 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.M.M. WAHEEDA., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN
C.C.NO.20603/2024 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I A.C.M.M
BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506,507,204 OF IPC WHICH
IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.8/2024 OF CCB BENGALURU CITY P.S.
BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY.
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, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.20603/2024 [Crime No.8/2024] on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 507 and 204 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is the specific allegation made against the petitioner that he is -3- NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 uploading the posts on 'Dailyhunt App' thereby, committing the offences punishable under Sections 204, 506 and 507 of IPC. In pursuance of the said complaint, which is registered as Crime No.8/2024, the impugned proceedings in CC No.20603/2024 on the file of the trial Court are assailed in the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any material to establish that the petitioner was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 204, 506 and 507 of IPC especially when there was no mens rea or intention on the part of the petitioner to either intimidate the complainant or destroy the evidence, the impugned proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be quashed. It is further submitted that a perusal of the impugned complaint, charge sheet etc. will indicate that apart from the fact that the petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of IPC, the petitioner has sold his mobile phone subsequently, cannot be prosecuted for offences under Section 204 of IPC also and as such the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and -4- NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 Another v. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 951.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. The scope and language of Sections 503, 504 and 506 of IPC came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Mohammad Wasid and Another v. State of U.P. (supra) wherein it is held as under:
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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
27. An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:--
1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or -7- NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024
(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 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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 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. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:--
"To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his -9- NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 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.
32. However, as observed earlier, the entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The parameters are:--
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 (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.
(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."
33. In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameters Nos.1, 5 and 7 reply referred to above.
34. At this stage, we would like to observe something
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 important.
Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.
35. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:--
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 "5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 :
1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2397 CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024 handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death....."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned posts by the petitioner in 'Dailyhunt App' clearly establish that no offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 507 of IPC had been made out against the petitioner particularly when there is no material to indicate that the petitioner had any intention or Mens rea to intimidate respondent No.2 - complainant; so also the mobile phone, which was allegedly used for the purposes of posting the said messages by the petitioner, having been sold by him subsequent, continuation of the present proceedings as against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2397
CRL.P No. 9907 of 2024
(ii) The impugned proceedings in
C.C.No.20603/2024 [Crime No.8/2024] on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 204, 506 and 507 of IPC are hereby quashed.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SA ct:sr