Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj Alias Nagappa S/O. Kareyappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16771
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102941 OF 2022
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJ @ NAGAPPA
S/O. KAREYAPPA KARENNAVAR,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. JOURNALIST,
R/O. PLOT NO.18, 3RD CROSS,
BRAHMA CHAITANYA PARK,
DODDANAYAKANAKOPPA, DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD - 580 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
DHARWAD - 580 011.
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, 2. RAJESH S/O. BALAPPA PUJAR,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNT SUPERINTENDENT
R/O: BETAGERI, BASAVANGUDI BADAVANE,
TQ & DIST: GADAG - 582 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATHY, HCGP FOR RESPONDNET/STATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC
NO.4278/2021 (IN GADAG TOWN P.S. CR.NO.62/2021) PENDING
ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-1
COURT, GADAG, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 353, 384,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16771
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2022
HC-KAR
109 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC IN THE INTERSET OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner, the sole accused, is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.4278/2021, registered for offences punishable under Sections 353, 384, 109 read with 34 of the IPC. The only charge that survives against the petitioner is the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri.Anil Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Srinivas Naik, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant.
3. The brief facts germane are as follows:
4. This Court, on 10.08.2023, had passed the following order:
1. "The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.4278/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 384, 109 read with Section 34 of the IPC.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16771 CRL.P No. 102941 of 2022 HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Anil Kale appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Shri V.S. Kalasuramath representing the respondent - State.
3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be an Activist engaged in the Right to Information Services (for short "the RTI"). The petitioner files an application seeking certain information against the complainant under the RTI with regard to certain activities of the complainant, which according to the petitioner was contrary to law. Seeking of information of the complainant by the petitioner leads the complainant to register the complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 353 & 384 of the IPC alleging that the petitioner has demanded money in exchange of certain information, failing which he has threatened him that he would divulge the said information. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.62/2021 for the afore quoted offences. The Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet in C.C. No.4278/2021. Filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel Shri Anil Kale representing the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the recovery of amount of Rs.40,000/- is made from the house of the petitioner, not the same day, not the next day, but after about a month of the alleged incident. Therefore, he would submit that it cannot be linked to the alleged demand or extortion. It is his case that there is no extortion in the case at hand. The complainant only to wreck vengeance, on the ground that the petitioner has sought information about his alleged misdeeds has registered the subject complaint. 5.
5. Learned HCGP on the other hand would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner claiming to be the RTI Activist has indulged in extortion as he has demanded money, failing which he would divulge the information that would be detrimental to the complainant. Therefore, in the process, he has stopped the public servant from performing his duties. He would submit that the Police have filed a charge sheet and further proceedings should be permitted to be continued against the petitioner. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16771 CRL.P No. 102941 of 2022 HC-KAR
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.
7. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. Application being filed by the petitioner seeking information about certain bills claimed by the complainant is a matter of record. On the said information being sought, it transpires that the complainant gets angered and registers a complaint against the petitioner on two grounds; one being that the petitioner is seeking money in exchange of the information that he is sought about the complainant. The complaint narrates that Rs.24,500/- was sought as information fees and Rs.65,000/- as money for extortion from the hands of the petitioner. The incident narrated in the complaint allegedly happens on 19.07.2021 and the recovery that is made from the residence of the petitioner is on 19.08.2021. The recovery is an amount of Rs.40,000/-. The prosecution is now wanting to link the said amount of Rs.40,000/- to the demand made by the petitioner of Rs.65,000/- a month ago. If the search had been conducted immediately and the amount would be recovered immediately, it would have been a circumstance altogether different and it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot / did not have the capacity to possess even Rs.40,000/- in his house. The dots are wanting to be linked by the production without there being a case, even prima facie against the petitioner, for an offence under Section 384 of the IPC, what remains is Section 353 of the IPC. For an offence under Section 353 of the IPC, the ingredients as obtaining under Section 351 of the IPC will have to be necessarily present. Section 351 of the IPC mandates that there should be use of criminal force upon the public servant, which would stop him from performing his public duties, no such allegation is forthcoming either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet reads as follows:
"ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÄÀ ªÀ UÀzÀUÀ ±ÀºÀgÀ gÁt ºÀ¢Ý ¥ÉÊQ UÀzÀUÀ ±ÀºÀgÀzÀ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ , PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ UÀzÀUÀ gÀªÀgÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19-07-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 11:30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ZÁdð²Ãl PÁ®A £ÀA: 12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀĪÀÄäQ̤AzÀ 1 £Éà DgÉÆæ £ÁUÀgÁd PÀgÀtÚªÀgÀ ¸Á: zsÁgÀªÁqÀ FvÀ£ÀÄ ZÁ.¸Á 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÁUÀ §AzÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ºÀQÌ£À°è eÁ.¸Á. 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ¤UÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ºÁUÀÆ -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16771 CRL.P No. 102941 of 2022 HC-KAR PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ PÀqÀvÀUÀ¼À £ÀPÀ®ÄUÀ¼ÄÀ ¨ÉÃPÁVªÉ 24,500/- gÀÆ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 5.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÁV J®è ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÁ ºÉüÀzÁUÀ, qÁ.¸Á 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÄÀ r.r, ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÀt vÀÄA§j ªÀiÁ»w 13 ¸Á«gÀ ªÀÄlUÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ DUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ PÁ®«Äw¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAzÁUÀ 1 £Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÄÀ ¹mÁÖV ZÁ.¸Á. 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ¤UÉ ¤£Àß £ËPÀj ºÉÃUÉ C¯Áèr¸ÀĪÀzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ CAvÁ ºÉzÀj¹ ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrØ ¥Àr¹, D¦üÃ¸ï ªÀÄÄVAiÀÄĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ PÁzÀÄ ZÁ.¸Á. 1 * £ÉÃzÀªÀgÄÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ 19-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ZÁ.¸Á. 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ.¸Á 17 £ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ vÀ£Àß PÁj£À°è PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ UÀzÀUÀ n¥ÀÅà ¸ÀįÁÛ£À ¸ÀPÀð¯ï ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV, ZÁ.¸Á 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ¤UÉ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß PÉÆqÀÄ J¯Áè ªÀiÁ»w ªÀÄÄnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÁ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ ºÉüÀ ºÉzÀj¹ ZÁ.¸Á 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£À §½ 65,000/- gÀÆ UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ, DgÉÆævÀgÉ®ègÀÆ «Ä¯Á¦AiÀiÁV ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÀAaPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀ®A:
353-384-109-gÉ/«-34-L¦¹ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀ J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
8. The summary of the charge sheet would not indicate use of any criminal force by the petitioner upon a public servant, for it to become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC. Therefore, both these allegations would tumble down on account of lack of basic material to drive home the said offences. Section 109 of the IPC is alleged on the strength of Sections 384 or 353 of the IPC, which again is independently unsustainable in the peculiar facts of this case. For all the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed;
(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.4278/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 384, 109 read with Section 34 of the IPC stands quashed qua petitioner."
5. Respondent No.2-complainant invoked Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of the said order on the ground that he had not been made a party and, consequently, had not been heard in the matter.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16771 CRL.P No. 102941 of 2022 HC-KAR
6. In view of the complainant not having been heard, the order was recalled and the petition was restored to the file of this Court for fresh consideration.
7. Learned Counsel Sri Anil Kale, appearing for the petitioner, reiterates the earlier submissions. The learned AGA adopts the same submissions.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently refutes the submissions of Sri Anil Kale, contending that the complainant was assaulted and that his chain was snatched by the petitioner, who is stated to be a journalist and an RTI activist.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act seeking information regarding the assets and liabilities of the complainant, and that the present complaint is a consequence thereof. It is contended that the complaint has been lodged alleging the aforesaid offences.
10. The police after investigation, have filed a charge sheet. The charge sheet makes it clear that the petitioner has neither snatched the complainant's chain nor any money; -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16771 CRL.P No. 102941 of 2022 HC-KAR however, it records an allegation of a demand of Rs.65,000/- as extortion.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
12. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. An order had already been passed earlier. The issue now is whether the petitioner should be permitted to be tried for offences under Sections 353 and 384 of the IPC. Section 384 pertains to the offence of extortion.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sum of Rs.65,000/- referred to in the summary of the charge sheet, as extracted above, was not recovered from the petitioner at the spot, but allegedly after one month; moreover, even that amount does not correspond to the amount spoken of by the complainant. The submission merits acceptance for the sheer reason that the alleged recovery was effected after a month. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16771 CRL.P No. 102941 of 2022 HC-KAR
14. Insofar as the offence under Section 353 of the IPC is concerned, the Apex Court in K. DHANANJAY Vs. CABINET SECRETARY AND OTHERS1, has held as follows:
"We have now perused the copy of the complaint Ms. A. which was given by Respondent No. 5 Thomeena, Deputy Registrar to the Inspector of Police, 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. 1 SLP (Crl) No. 5905 of 2022 disposed on 21-10-2024 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16771 CRL.P No. 102941 of 2022 HC-KAR 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."
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. In the light of the aforesaid facts, unequivocal as they are, the petition deserves to succeed notwithstanding the vehement opposition of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 4278 of 2021 pending before the Court of the 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-1, Gadag stands quashed qua the petitioner.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16771 CRL.P No. 102941 of 2022 HC-KAR iii. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 114