Karnataka High Court
T G Ravi vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2189
CRL.P No. 9975 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. 9975 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
T G RAVI
ADVOCATE
PRESENTLY GENERAL SECRETARY
THE ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION BANGALORE
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O GOPALAPPA TV
NO.SF 19 HMS COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR
CUBBONPETE MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 002.
Digitally
signed by ...PETITIONER
NAGAVENI
(BY SRI. GIRISHKUMAR R., ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALASURU GATE POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2189
CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. MOUNESHWAR
AGED MAJOR
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
JEEVANBHIMA NAGAR POLICE STATION
JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 093
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, LEARNED HCGP FOR
R1 AND R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC
(FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.3886/2016 AND SUBSEQUENT
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION OF
F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.297/2011 BY HALASURGATE POLICE
STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 506, 341,
504, 332, 353 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON
THE FILES OF 1 ACMM, MAYOHALL BANGALORE AND LATER IN
THE FILE OF VI ADD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2189
CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.3886/2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri. Girishkumar R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and on an incident that happens on 20.09.2011, a crime comes to be registered by the respondent No.1 on the score that the petitioner had blocked or stopped the respondent No.2/complainant, a Police Sub-Inspector, from moving anywhere, which would become an offence under Section 341 of the IPC. The complaint also states that the petitioner had blocked the complainant who is a public servant in discharge of his official duties by use of force, which would -4- NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC. On the said complaint, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.386/2011 for the aforesaid offences. The police conduct investigation and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner, which is now pending as C.C.No.3886/2016 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 Section 341 or 353 of the IPC, as the case would be, are met in the case at hand. He further submits that, for what has happened in the Court premises, in no way can the offences under Section 341 or 353 of the IPC be met, in the case at hand.
6. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents would submit that there is clear blocking by the petitioner-accused of movement of the Police Sub-Inspector, which has happened in the Court premises and therefore, no lenience should be shown and the petitioner should be directed to face trial and come out clean in a full blown trial.
-5-NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsels and have perused the material available on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. An incident happening in the Court premises on 20.09.2011, leads the respondent No.2 - complainant to register a complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
" ಂದ, ೌ ೇಶ ರ ಎ ೕವ ೕ ಾನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
ೆ
ೕ ಇ !"ೆಕ$%,
ೕವ ೕ ಾ ನಗರ ೕ
ಾ ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು
&ಷಯ:
&ಷಯ ಕತ*ವ+,ೆ- ಅ/0ಪ/2 ಹ4ೆ5 ಾ/ ೕವದ ೆದ6,ೆ 7ಾ8 ಅ9ಾಚ+ ೈಯು< TG ರ&
ಮತು> ಇತ?ೆ ಮೂರು ಜನ ವBೕಲರ Dೕ4ೆ ದೂರು.
ಾನ+?ೇ,
ಾನು ೕವ ೕ ಾ ನಗರ ೕ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ 5 ಎರಡು ವಷ*ಗFಂದ ಎ ಆH
,ೆಲಸ ಾಡುJರುKೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಈ ದಜನ 20-9-2011 ರಂದು ಾನು ನಮM ಾ ೆಯ N ಸಂ:
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:2189
CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024
HC-KAR
344/11 U/s 408,420 ಯ 5 ಆ?ೋ OಾHದ< Pಂದು ಎಂಬುವವರನುR ದಸ>H6 ಾ/ದು<
ಅವರ ಮುಂSನ ತTUೆ ೆ ಅವಶ+9ಾHದ<6ಂದ, ೕ ೕ ಬಂಧನ,ೆ- ,ೋ6 ಾಣ+ 4 ೇ
ACMM ಾ+Oಾಲಯದ ಮುಂXೆ 7ಾಜರು ಪ/2ಲು 9700 hrs ಾ+Oಾಲಯ,ೆ-
7ೋHರುKೆ>ೕ ೆ. ನನR YೊKೆ ಬಸಮM WPC 10277, ASI ೋ&ಂದ?ಾಜು PC 5752 ಸುTೕZ ಇವರು ೆಂ ಾವ4ಾH ಕ?ೆದು ,ೊಂಡು 7ೋHರುKೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಾನು ,ೋ[*ನ ಅವರಣದ 5 ಸದ6 ವBೕಲರು ನಮM ಹJ>ರ ಬಂದು Pಂದು ಇವ6 ೆ Tೕವ\ ಾ+ ]ೆ^ೕ_ ರವರ ಹJ>ರ ೕಸರು 7ೊ`ೆSXಾ<?ೆ ಎಂದು 7ೇF ಎಂದು 7ೇFದು< ಾವ\ Oಾ,ೆ ಈ ತರ ಸುಳab ಆ?ೋಪ ಾಡುವಂKೆ "ೆcೕ?ೇ ಸುJ>ೕ6 ಎಂದು ,ೇFದ<,ೆ- 2dಾ$Hದ<ರು. ನಂತರ ಾನು ಾನ+ 4 ೇ ACMM ಾ+Oಾಲಯದ 5 ಆ?ೋ ಯನುR 7ಾಜರುಪ/2 ೕ ಬಂಧನ,ೆ- ಪ`ೆದು,ೊಂಡು 7ೊರ ೆ ಬಂXಾಗ ಸದ6 ವBೕಲ?ಾದ T G ರ& 7ಾಗೂ ಇತರ ಮೂರು ಜನ ವBೕಲರು ,ೋ[*ನ ಆವರಣದ 5 ನನR ಬF ಬಂದು Tೕನು ೇಡವಂದರು ನಮM ಕeXಾರರನುR ೕ ೕ ಬಂಧನ,ೆ- ಪ`ೆದು,ೊಂ/S<ೕOಾ Tೕನು ಅದು 7ೇ ೆ 6ಕವ6 ಾಡುJ>fೕ ೋಡುKೆ>ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು ಾನು ವBೕಲರ ಸಂಘದ ಖ7ಾಂi ಇದು<. TನRನುR ಸುಮM ೆ Pಡುವ\Sಲ5 ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ ಮುಂXೆ 7ೋಗದಂKೆ ಈ ಾಲು- ಜನ ವBೕಲರ ನನR ,ೈಯನುR jದು,ೊಂಡು ನನR ಯುT9ಾk* j/ದು ಎlೆXಾ/ ಾನು ಎಂತಹವ?ೆಂದು Tನಗ ೊJ>ಲ5 ,ೆಟ$ ಶಬ<ಗFಂದ ೈಯು< ೕವದ ೆದ6,ೆ 7ಾB TನRನುR ೕವಂತ9ಾH Pಡುವ\Sಲ5 ಎಂದು ಮುಂXೆ 7ೋಗದಂKೆ ಅಡ0ಗ[$ ಹ4ೆ5 ಾ/ದರು. ನಂತರ ಾನು ಅವ6 ೆ ಾನು ನನR ,ಾನೂನುಬದn9ಾದ ,ೆಲಸ ಾಡುJ>ರುKೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಎಂದು &ನಂJ ಾ/ದರು Pಡದ?ೆ ಅ9ಾಚ+9ಾH ೈಯು< ಹ4ೆ5 ಾ/ ಅಡ0ಗ[$ ನನR ಕತ*ವ+,ೆ- ಅ/0ಪ/2ದು< ನಂತರ ಅ 5ಯ ಇದ< ನಮM ಾ ೆಯ 2ಬoಂS ASI ೋ&ಂದ?ಾಜ, WPC ಬಸಮM PC ನುTೕಲು ಇತರ ಸ7ಾಯSಂದ ನನRನುR ರe2 ನನRನುR ಕ?ೆದು,ೊಂಡು ಬಂSರುತ>Xೆ. 7ಾ ೆpೕ ನನR YೊKೆ PC930 ]ಾ q ರವರು ಸಹ ಇದು< ಅವರು ವBೕಲರ ಆ 6ೕJ ಾಡದಂKೆ 7ೇFರುKಾ>?ೆ. ಈ ಘಟ ೆ ನ`ೆXಾಗ ಸು ಾರು 17-30 ಇಂದ 18-00 ಘಂdೆ ಆHರಬಹುದು, ACMM ,ೋ_* ಆವರಣದ 5 ನ`ೆSರುತ>Xೆ. ಅXೇ 6ೕJOಾH ಸದಲ ವBೕಲ?ಾದ TG ರ&ರವರು TನR S: 19-9-11 ರಂದು 17-45 ಗಂdೆ ೆ ಾ ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು 7ಾಜರುಪ/2 ,ಾಡ*ನುR Tೕ/ ಾನು ವBೕಲರ ಸಂಘದ ಖYಾಂiOಾHದು< Tೕವ\ ದಸ>H6 ಾ/ರುವ Pಂದು ರವರನುR Pಟು$ P/ ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ ,ೋ6,ೊಂ/ದು< ಾನು ಅವರು ಪcಕರಣದ 5 ದಸ>H6 ಆHXಾ<?ೆ Pಡಲು ಬರುವ\Sಲ5 ಎಂದು JF2ದ<,ೆ- 2ಟು$ ಾ/,ೊಂಡು ಾlೆ ,ೋ[* ೆ ಬಂXಾಗ ೋ/,ೊಳabKೆ>ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು ಾ/,ೊಂಡು 7ೊರಟು 7ೋHದು< ಅವ?ೊಂS ೆ ಇ ೊRಬo ವBೕಲರು ಸಹ ಬಂSದ<ರು. ಇXೇ &ಷಯ,ೆ- ನನR Dೕ4ೆ 2ಟು$ ಇಟು$,ೊಂಡು ಈ ರ&T G 7ಾಗೂ T ೆR ಾ ೆ ೆ ಬಂSದ< ವBೕಲ?ೊಬoರು ]ೇ6 ಒಟು$ 4 ಜನ ವBೕಲರು ನನR Dೕ4ೆ ಹ4ೆ5 ಾ/ ಕತ*ವ+,ೆ- ಅ/0 ಪ/2 ಅ9ಾಚ+ ಶಬ<ಗFಂದ ೈಯು< ೆದ6,ೆ 7ಾBದು<. ಸದ6 ಾಲು5 ಜನರ "ೈB T G ರ&ಯವರನುR Pಟು$ ೇ?ೆ ಮೂರು ಜನರ 7ೆಸರು ನನ ೆ ೊJ>ರುವ\Sಲ5. ಾನು ಅವರನುR ಮKೆ> ೋ/ದ?ೆ ಗುರುJಸುKೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಸದ6 ವBೕಲ6 ೆ ತಮM ಕeXಾರ6 ೆ ಆಂ[2"ೇಟ6 ೇZ ಪ`ೆಯಲು ಅವ,ಾಶ Tೕಡ ಲ5, ನಮM ಾತು ,ೇಳ ಲ5 ಎಂಬ ,ಾರಣ,ೆ- ನನR Dೕ4ೆ ಈ 6ೕJOಾH ,ಾನೂನು ಾjರ9ಾH ಹ4ೆ5 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR ಾ/ ಕತ*ವ+,ೆ- ಅ/0 ಪ/2ದು< ಅವರ Dೕ4ೆ ,ಾನೂನು ಕcಮ ಜರುH2 ನನ ೆ ಾ+ಯ XೊರB2,ೋಡ ೇ,ೆಂದು ತಮM 5 &ನಂJಸುJ>Xೆ<ೕ ೆ. 7ಾಗೂ ಇದ?ೊಂS ೆ T ೆR T G ರ& ಯವರು ನನ ೆ Tೕ/ದ< ಗುರುJನ & [ಂs ,ಾt*ನುR ಸಹ 7ಾಜರುಪ/ಸುJ>Xೆ<ೕ ೆ. ನ ೊRಂS ೆ ವಶ,ೆ- ಪ`ೆದ ಆ?ೋ Pಂದು P ಇದು<ದ6ಂದ ಆ,ೆಯ ಾ ೆ ೆ ಕ?ೆದು ತಂದು Pಟು$ 20-9-11 ರಂದು ದೂರನುR ಇ 5pೕ ಸ 52ರುKೆ>ೕ ೆ.
ೆಂಗಳ ರು
PSI
ೕವ ೕ ಾ
ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು"
9. The police, after conducting investigation, file the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17, reads as follows:
"S ಾಂಕ:20/09/2011 ರಂದು ಸಂYೆ 5.30 ಗಂdೆಯ 5 ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ, ಹಲಸೂರು ೇ_ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹS<ನ, ನೃಪತುಂಗ ರ]ೆ>ಯ 5ರುವ ಾ+ ]ೆ^ೕ_ ,ೋ_* ಆವರಣದ ,ಾ% "ಾBಂ*s ಸwಳದ 5, ಅಂಕಣ 2ರ 5 ನಮೂS2ರುವ ಎ1 ಆ?ೋ ಯು ,ಎ2,ಎ3 ಮತು> ಎ4 ರವರನುR ಕ?ೆದು,ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು 4ೋಕ ೌಕರ?ಾದ ]ಾe:1ರವರು ತನR &?ೋಧದ ನಡು9ೆಯೂ ತನR ಕeXಾರಳನುR ಾನ+ ಾ+Oಾಲಯದ ªÀÄÄAzÉ 7ಾಜರುಪ/2 ೕ ಬಂಧನ,ೆ- ಪ`ೆದು,ೊಂಡರು ಮುಂXೆ ಎಂಬ ಉXೆ<ೕಶSಂದ ]ಾe:1ರವರನುR ಅಕcಮ9ಾH ತ`ೆದು T 52, ನನR ಕeXಾರಳನುR ೕ ಬಂಧನ,ೆ- ಪ`ೆSS<ೕಯ Tೕನು 7ೇ ೆ 6ಕವ6 ಾಡುJ>ೕಯ ೋಡುKೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಾನು ವBೕಲರ ಸಂಘದ ಖYಾಂi TನRನುR ಸುಮM ೆ Pಡುವ\Sಲ59ೆಂದು ಕೂ ಾ/ ]ಾe:1 ರವರು ಸ,ಾ*6 ಕತ*ವ+ದ Dೕ4ೆ ಧ62ದ< ಸಮವಸyವನುR j/ದು ಎlೆXಾ/, TನRಮM , TನRಕ- ಎಂದು ಅ9ಾಚ+ ಶಬ<ಗFಂದ ೈದು TನRನುR ೕವ ಸjತ Pಡುವ\Sಲ59ೆಂದು "ಾcಣ ೆದ6,ೆ 7ಾB, ೕ ಸ{ ಇ !"ೆಕ$% ಆH ಸ,ಾ*6 ಕತ*ವ+ Tವ*jಸುJ>ದ< ]ಾe:1 ರವ6 ೆ ಸಂYೆ 5.30 ಗಂdೆ ಂದ 6.00 ಗಂdೆಯ ನಡು9ೆ ಸ,ಾ*6 ಕತ*ವ+ Tವ*jಸದಂKೆ ಅ/0 ಪ/2ರುವ\ದು ತTUಾ ,ಾಲದ 5 ದೃಢ ಪ[$ರುತ>Xೆ.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À jÃvÁå zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ."
10. 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 341 and 353 of the IPC being the primary offences inter alia.
Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC, read as follows:
"341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
11. For an offence to become punishable under Section 341 of the IPC, the ingredients as obtaining under Section 339 of the IPC should be necessarily met. The complaint or the charge sheet so filed is not indicative of the fact that respondent No.2 - complainant was not allowed to move in any -9- NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR direction by use of force by the petitioner. That being so, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA v. MEHERVAN RUSTOM IRANI1 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"11. It is in the aforementioned backdrop of events, the statement made by the first respondent that Accused 1 to 5 were managing the affairs of the Company and had instigated Accused 6 to construct the road must be viewed. It is one thing to say that the Company had asked Accused 6 to make construction but only because Accused 1 to 5 were its Directors, the same, in our opinion, would not be sufficient to fasten any criminal liability on them for commission of an offence under Section 341 IPC or otherwise.
12. "Wrongful restraint" has been defined under Section 339 IPC in the following words:
"339. Wrongful restraint.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Exception.--The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section."
The essential ingredients of the aforementioned provision are:
(1) Accused obstructs voluntarily; (2) The victim is prevented from proceeding in any direction;
(3) Such victim has every right to proceed in that direction.
13. Section 341 IPC provides that:
1(2009) 6 SCC 475
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR "341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
14. The word "voluntary" is significant. It connotes that obstruction should be direct. The obstructions must be a restriction on the normal movement of a person. It should be a physical one. They should have common intention to cause obstruction.
15. The appellants herein were not at the site. They did not carry out any work. No overt act or physical obstruction on their part has been attributed. Only because legal proceedings were pending between the Company and Bombay Municipal Corporation and/or with the first respondent herein, the same would not by itself mean that the appellants were in any way concerned with commission of a criminal offence of causing obstructions to the first respondent and his parents.
16. We have noticed hereinbefore that despite of the said road being under construction, the first respondent went to the police station thrice. He, therefore, was not obstructed from going to the police station. In fact, a firm action had been taken by the authorities. The workers were asked not to do any work on the road. We, therefore, fail to appreciate that how, in a situation of this nature, the Managing Director and the Directors of the Company as also the Architect can be said to have committed an offence under Section 341 IPC.
...... ...... ......
19. Even as regards the availability of the remedy of filing an application for discharge, the same would not mean that although the allegations made in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, do not disclose an offence or it is found to be otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, still the High Court would refuse to exercise its
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
20. Indisputably, there might have been some delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court but while adjusting equity the High Court was required to take into consideration the fact that in a case of this nature the appellants would face harassment although the allegations contained in the complaint petition even assuming to be correct were trivial in nature. The High Court furthermore has failed to take into consideration the fact that in the first information report no allegation in regard to acts of common intention or common object on the part of the appellants was made out. The appellants were not named as accused therein. It is, therefore, really difficult to appreciate as to on what basis the complaint petition was filed.
21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order summoning the appellant is quashed."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment holds that for an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC the essential ingredients under Section 339 of the IPC which have to be necessarily met are that, the accused must obstruct voluntarily, the victim must be prevented from proceeding in any direction and such victim must have every right to proceed in that direction, all of which are absent in the case at hand.
Therefore, the offence under Section 341 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. The next offence is the one punishable under Section 353 of the IPC. The interpretation of Section 353 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in its latest judgment in the case of HARI NANDAN SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND2, while quashing the criminal case registered against the petitioners therein, holds that an offence under Section 353 of the IPC is not made out in the absence of assault or use of force. The Apex Court observes as follows:
"16. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar. For the sake of immediate reference, we extract Sections 353, 298 and 504 of the IPC as under:
"Section 353 : Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty: Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 298 : Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 574
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
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.
...... ...... ......
18. Applying the aforesaid judgment to the present case in light of what has been extracted above as the relevant portion of the First Information Report in light of the offence alleged as against the appellant herein, we do not find that any ingredients of the offences alleged as against the appellant herein find place in FIR registered as against him.
19. A bare perusal of Case No. 140 of 2020 reveals that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC are not made out. Evidently, there was no assault or use of force by the appellant to attract Section 353 IPC. Therefore, the High Court ought to have discharged the appellant under Section 353 IPC. Further, the appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him "Miyan-Tiyan" and "Pakistani."
Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant shall also be discharged under Section 298 IPC. Additionally, we find that the appellant cannot be charged under Section 504 IPC, as there was no act on his part that could have provoked a breach of peace and accordingly, deserves to be discharged under Section 504 IPC as well."
( (Emphasis supplied)
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR
13. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of UMASHANKAR YADAV AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER3, lays down the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 353 of the IPC and observes as follows:
"17. The moot issue is do the uncontroverted allegations as narrated in the chargesheet disclose the ingredients of offences under Sections 186 and 353 IPC ?
18. Essential ingredients of offence under Section 186 are as follows:--
(i) Obstruction of a public servant in discharge of public functions
(ii) Such obstruction is done voluntarily and with the intention to prevent discharge of official duties.
19. Section 353 is attracted when the following ingredients are satisfied:--
(i) Use of assault or criminal force on a public servant during execution of his duty.
(ii) With the intention:--
(a) to prevent or deter discharge of such duty; or
(b) as a consequence of anything done or attempted to be done in the lawful discharge of his duty.
20. The words force and criminal force are defined in Sections 349 and 356 IPC and 'assault' is defined in Section 351 of the said Code.
32025 SCC OnLine SC 1066
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR
21. A person is said to use force when:
(i) He causes motion, change in motion or cessation of motion of another person by:
(a) use of bodily power; or
(b) using a substance which comes in contact of the body, wearing apparel etc or with anything which affects the other person's senses; or
(c) inducing any animal to move or change its motion or cease to move.
22. Criminal force is defined as use of force by a person in order to commit an offence or done with the intention that such force is to cause or likely to cause injury, fear and annoyance to other person.
23. Assault involves any gesture or preparation which is done with the intention that such gesture or preparation will cause an apprehension about use of criminal force. Use of criminal force or assault on a public servant is essential to attract Section 353 IPC.
24. Coming to the facts of the case, uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet do not disclose use of force or holding out threatening gestures giving rise to an apprehension of use of force towards public servant. Physical movement of the labourers would not amount to use of force far less criminal force on a public servant.
25. Given this situation, we can safely conclude uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet do not disclose the ingredients of offence under Section 353 IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court, which clearly indicate what would become an offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC, the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR allegations would not be met even to its semblance, as the petitioner has not by use of criminal force stopped the complainant, a public servant from performing his official duty.
Moreover, the incident is said to have happened in the corridors of the Court of law, where the complainant was ostensibly free to move. The other offences have sprung only from the aforesaid incident, which is inherently improbable.
16. 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 LAL4, 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 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2189 CRL.P No. 9975 of 2024 HC-KAR 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.3886/2016 pending before the concerned Court qua the petitioner stand quashed Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:SG