Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanachar L vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1869
CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8184 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI NARAYANACHAR L
S/O LATE LINGACHAR
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT LAKSHMAMMA BADAVANE,
HIRIYUR - 577 598
CHITRADURGA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA.N., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
NAGAVENI
Location: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
High Court of
Karnataka
BY HIRIYUR TOWN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1869
CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. SRI. VIJAYAKUMARA T
S/O NOT KNOWN
AGED 55 YEARS,
WORKING AT NAGARASABHE
HIRIYUR - 577 598
CHITRADURGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.57/2023 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.218/2022 OF HIRIYUR TOWN POLICE STATION AS FAR AS
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 341, 353, 504 OF IPC 1860 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS AT HIRIYUR AS THE CONTINUATION OF
PROCEEDINGS IS CLEAR ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1869
CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.57/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 353 and 504 of the IPC.
2. The complainant though served 2 years ago, remains unrepresented even today. In the light of the charge sheet being filed, the learned HCGP, Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, representing the State, and learned counsel, Sri. Vivekananda N., appearing for the petitioner, are heard.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner is the accused, and respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioner, though now retired from service, at the relevant point in time was working as the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Hiriyur. Respondent No.2 was working as a Work Inspector in the same office. The petitioner is said to have registered a complaint before the Lokayukta against certain omissions and commissions allegedly committed -4- NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR by the complainant. After the registration of the said complaint by the petitioner against respondent No.2 comes the impugned complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable as afore-quoted. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. 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 the complaint is registered against this petitioner as a counterblast to the complaint registered by the petitioner before the Lokayukta. He would further submit that none of the ingredients that are necessary to be proved for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353 or 504 of the IPC are met even to a semblance in the case at hand. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.
5. Learned HCGP would submit that the police after investigation have filed the charge sheet and in the light of the charge sheet being filed by the police, the petitioner has to come out clean in a full blown trial, as the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 341 or 353 of the IPC, as -5- NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR the case would be, are made out against the petitioner in the case at hand. He would thus seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The issue now lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353 and 504 of the IPC are met in the case at hand. To consider the said issue, the skeletal facts that could be gathered is that, the petitioner registers a complaint before the Lokayukta against the present complainant alleging certain misconduct against him. The complainant then springs into action. The petitioner files complaints against several officers of the Town Municipal Council, and also goes to the office of the complainant to enquire about what has happened to the complaint that he sought to register. It transpires that the complaint registered by the petitioner against several officers of the Town Municipal Council resulted in the matter being referred to the Lokayukta -6- NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR on 25.08.2022 and a departmental enquiry by the Deputy Registrar of Enquiries-5 is taken up by the Lokayukta. When things stood thus, the present complaint springs for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner that he has wrongfully restrained a public servant and has stopped the public servant from discharge of his official duties. Therefore, the offences under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC have sprung.
8. I deem it appropriate to notice the provisions under which the petitioner is now charged for a consideration of the issue in the lis. The offences are Sections 341, 353 and 504 of the IPC. They 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.
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and -7- NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR 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."
9. Section 341 of the IPC has its ingredients in Section 339 of the IPC, which reads as follows:
"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."
(Emphasis supplied) Section 339 of the IPC would mandate that the accused must have stopped the complainant or restrained the complainant from movement on any corner and that would only amount to an offence under Section 341 of the IPC.
10. In so far as the offence under Section 353 of the IPC is concerned, the offence has its ingredients in Section 351 of the IPC. Section 351 of the IPC reads as follows: -8-
NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR "351. 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.
Explanation.--Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault."
11. The interpretation of Section 351 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
17. At the outset, we extract hereinbelow Section 353IPC:
"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."
A perusal of Section 353 indicates that whoever assaults or uses criminal force:
1
(2024) 8 SCC 244 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR
(a) to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or
(b) with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or
(c) 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 the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
18. It is important at this stage to notice the definition of "criminal force" as defined in Section 350IPC.
"350. Criminal force.--Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other."
As would be clear, what is required to establish criminal force is intentional use of force to any person without that person's consent in order to the committing of any offence.
19. Section 349 IPC which defines "force" is extracted hereinbelow:
"349. Force.--A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described.
First.--By his own bodily power.
Secondly.--By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.
Thirdly.--By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move."
20. Assault under Section 351 IPC would mean 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. The Apex Court in a later judgment in the case of UMASHANKAR YADAV AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER2, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
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 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1066
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR
(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.
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."
(Emphasis supplied) If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the bedrock of the principles elucidated by the Apex court in the afore-quoted judgments, it would completely run foul of what is held by the Apex Court, as there is no ingredient of usage of criminal force by the complainant against the accused for it to become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR Therefore, the offences under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC are loosely laid against the petitioner. What remains is the offence under Section 504 of the IPC, which deals with breach of peace. The ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC is found in Section 503 of the IPC. Section 503 of the IPC reads as follows:
"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 threats, 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."
The interpretation of Section 503 of the IPC also need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS3, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
Sections 503, 504 and 506 IPC
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1869
CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 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."
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR
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
(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
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 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
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 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) The Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID supra holds the ingredients that are necessary to be met for an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is also missing in the case at hand.
14. Therefore, on all these issues, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would not only run foul of what the Apex Court has held, but would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 8184 of 2023 HC-KAR
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.57/2023 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hiriyur, stands quashed qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT:SG