Bangalore District Court
Gangahonnaiah, Asi vs Gajendra on 23 September, 2025
KABC030844882019 Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 14-11-2019
Registered on : 16-11-2019
Decided on : 23-09-2025
Duration : 5 years, 10 months, 9 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 23rd Day of September, 2025
C.C. No.27324/2019
(Crime No.94/2019)
State by J.C. Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri. Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Gajendra,
Aged about 45 years,
S/o Sri Ramaiah,
R/at No.33, Muniswamappa
Road, J.C.Nagara,
Benglauru.
KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
2. Sri Naresh- split up
Aged about 19 years,
S/o Sri Ashok,
R/at No.267, Gangabhavani
Quarters, MRS Palya,
J.C.Nagara, Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Rep by Sri M. N. Ramaneha Adv for Accused No.1)
1. Date of commission of 09-10-2019
offence
2. Date of FIR 09-10-2019
3. Date of Charge sheet 30-10-2019
4. Name of Complainant Sri Ganga Honnamma,
ASI of J.C. Nagara PS,
Bengaluru.
5. Offences complained of Under Section 353, 341,
504 read with Sec.34 of
IPC
6. Date of framing of 28-03-2023
charges
7.Charge Pleaded not guilty
2
KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
8. Date of commencement 21-08-2023
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 23-09-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 23-09-2025
11. Final Order Accused No.1 is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of J. C. Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 09-10-2019 at about 10 am, the accused No.1 and 2 near F.V. Sagar Hotel within the limits of J.C. Nagara Police Station were picking up quarrel, when CW1 namely Smt. Ganga Honnamma, ASI and CW6 namely Sri Rajkumar, Head Constable of J.C. Nagara PS, questioned, the accused persons wrongfully restrained CW1 and CW6, abused them with filthiest language and obstructed them from discharging their public duties and ran away when they went to catch him.
3KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information lodged by CW1, CW9 Sri Rangaswamaiah, ASI of J.C. Nagar P S registered Crime No.94/2019 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 341, 353, 323, 504 R/W Sec.34 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P4, sent the same to the Court and to his Superior Officers and drawn spot mahazar on 09-10-2019 at 11 to 12 pm in the present of CW2 namely Sri Raghavendra and CW3 namely Sri Ganesh as per Ex.P2 and thereafter handed over the case papers to CW10 Sri B. K. Manjaiah.
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers from CW8, CW10/PW4 continued investigation, CW4 namely Sri Chandrashekar and CW5 Sri Shivaji produced the accused before him along with report as per Ex.P3, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses, secured the documents and submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 341, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
5. The accused No. 2 was enlarged on bail at pre-cognizance stage by the order dated 11-10-2019. The accused No.1 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 17-02-2022 at the post cognizance stage .
4KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the alleged offences against the accused No.1 and 2.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the charge for the offences punishable under Section 341, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. In view of the continuous absence of accused No.2, the case against accused No.2 was ordered to be split up by the order dated 21-08-2025.
10. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 10 witnesses however examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents and closed their side. The examination of CW6 was given up by the order dated 21-08-2023. The examination of CW9 was dropped out as reported to dead by the order dated 09-11-2023. The presence of CW3 could not be secured by the order dated 16-12- 5 KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 2023 despite due execution of proclamation. On account of examination of CW5 and marking of Ex.P3 through IO/PW4, the examination of CW4 is given up by the order dated 19-09-2025.
11. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 was examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
12. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
13. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 09-10-2019 at about 10 a.m. near F.V. Sagar Hotel within the limits of J.C. Nagara Police Station, the accused No.1 along with split up accused No.2 with common intention wrongfully restrained CW1 namely Smt. Ganga 6 KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 Honnamma, ASI and CW6 namely Rajkumar, Head Constable of J.C. Nagara PS thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable U/Sec.341 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time accused No.1 along with split up accused No.2 in furtherance of common intention abused CW1 and CW6 with filthiest language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable Section 504 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place in furtherance common intention the accused No.1 7 KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 along with split up accused No.2 obstructed CW1 and CW6 from discharging their public duties thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable U/Sec.353 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
4. What order?
14. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per final order REASONS
15. Point No.1 to 3: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 13 of this judgment, the prosecution examined witnesses which are as follows i. CW1 by name Smt. Ganga Honamma, being informant examined as PW1 deposed that on 09-10- 8 KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 2019 at 8.30 am, near FV Sagar Hotel on JC Nagar Main Road, the accused persons obstructed their duty and hurled abusive words at them. When they went to catch them, they ran away. A report was filed against them at the police station as per Ex.P1, and then the police station authorities conducted spot panchanama as per Ex.P2.
ii. CW2 Sri Raghavendra, pancha witness examined as PW2 identified his signature on Ex.P2 as Ex.P2(a) and deposed that he singed on to the said document at the request of police, he does not know the content of Ex.P2, no mahazar has been conducted in his presence and obtained his signature on blank paper. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness but no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case.
iii. CW7 Sri Jagadish, the then HC of J.C. Nagar PS examined as PW3 deposed that on 09-10-2019, whilst he along with CW8 were patrolling for Dasara Festival, at 10.15 am, there was a fight near the F.V. Sagar Hotel, when they went therein, the accused persons obstructed CW1 and CW6 from their duties and abused them.
9KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 iv. CW10 by name Sri B.K.Manjaiah, the then PI of J.C. Nagara PS examined as PW4 deposed that after receipt of case papers from CW9, he continued the investigation, CW4 and CW5 apprehended the accused No.1, produced before him and submitted report as per Ex.P3, he recorded the statements of CW6 to CW8, secured the computerized copy of police station house diary for deputing CW1 and CW6 on the alleged date and completed the investigation and submitted the final report. CW9 reported to dead, he identified the complaint and FIR and spot mahazar as per Ex.P1, 2 and 4 and CW9's signature as Ex.P1(b), 2(b) and 4(a).
v. CW5 by name Sri Shivaji M Daroor, the then PC of J.C. Nagara PS examined as PW5 deposed that he and CW4 arrested the accused No.2 near Pottery Town, T.P. Circle and produced him before CW10 and have given a statement in this regard.
16. Before adverting into the factual matrix of the case, it is relevant to discuss on the point No.3 to consider and analyze the necessary ingredients of Section 353 of IPC which reads as under:-
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to 10 KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 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."
Thus, the above section makes it very clear that in order to attract the offence, it is the burden on the prosecution to prove that there was an assault or use of criminal force restraining public servant from performing their official/public duties or causing any act with intent to prevent or deter CW1 and CW6 from discharging their duty. In order to make out a case under section 353 of IPC, the prosecution must meet out essential requirements that a public servant must be assaulted or subjected to criminal force when they were carrying out their responsibilities or with the object of preventing or deterring them from discharging their duties.
11KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
17. To establish as to whether the CW1/PW1 and CW6 have assaulted or used any criminal force upon them it is necessary to examine the definition of 'force', 'criminal force' and 'assault', which are defined in Sections 349, 350 and 351 of IPC which are as under:-
Section 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 motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described:
First.--By his own bodily power.
12
KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
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.
A reading of above Section makes it clear that a person is said to use force in any of the three methods mentioned above. The exertion of energy or power that causes a movement or change in the external environment is known as force. The term "force" as defined in this Section refers to force exerted by a person on another human.
Section 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 13 KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 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.
From perusal of the above section, it is clear that the force that has been specified in Section 349 changes into a criminal force when the essential of Section 350 are satisfied. The essentials of Section 350 are intentional / deliberate use of force against any one; without consent, when the claimed assault involves illegal conduct and the force has to be utilized in order to conduct an offence or to cause hurt or fear to another person.
Section 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 14 KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 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.
By keeping the aforesaid provision of law with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manik Taneja and another Vs State of Karnataka and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 held that the person accused of offence under section 353 of IPC should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-
"12. A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from 15 KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 discharging his duty as such public servant.
By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the accused persons to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the accused No. 1 and 2 either assaulted the PW1 or CW6 or used criminal force to prevent them from discharging their official/public duties.
18. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused No.1 and 2 had assaulted the police officials (PW1 and CW6) or used criminal force with an intention to prevent or deter them from discharging their duties. Even assuming that there was some gesture or preparation to use such criminal force, the same cannot be considered as assault or using of criminal force to deter them from discharging their duties. Considering the above fact, this court is of the view that the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of IPC was not proved.
19. The next accusation is the accused persons wrongfully restrained the PW1 and CW6 and the relevant provision of law is that Section 341 IPC- Punishment for wrongful restraint.-- Whoever wrongfully restrains any 16 KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 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 the wrongful restraint has been defined under Section 339 of IPC which reads as under "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has right to proceed, is said to wrongfully to restrain that person."
To constitute an offence under Section 341 of IPC, a person must have wrongfully restrained another person from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits. In the instant case, there is no allegation or material that the accused No. 1 and 2 restrained the police personnel (PW1 and CW6) from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits, except the allegation that they restrained the police personnel from discharging their duties in the case of SYED ESA IBRAHIM and another vs STATE BY CHANNAPATNA EAST PS and another reported in NC:
2023:KHC:38832 vide CRL.P No. 10483 of 2022 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 02/11/2023.17
KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
20. The next accusation is that the accused persons abused the PW1 and CW6 with abusive language. The following ingredient of Section 504 of IPC comprises as follows;
(a) intentional insult,
(b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and
(c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
Thus, the intentional insult must be of such an extent that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and mere fact that the accused abused the PW1 and CW6 is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC and the said principle is appreciated in the case of FIONA 18 KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44.
21. It is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, in order to a conclusion that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a PW1 and CW6 should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC but on perusal of evidence, the PW1 has not deposed about the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC. Therefore, in the case on hand, ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC was not proved.
22. IO did not secure any best evidence as a matter of proof to prove the prosecution case except registration of complaint, drawing of spot mahazar and recording the statement of witnesses.
19KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
23. Though it is alleged that the accused No.1 and 2 are obstructed their public duties by abusing them, utmost may constitute an offence under Section 186 of IPC however the prosecution failed to put forth any ingredients as to Section 186 of IPC and never explained how their public duties were obstructed.
24. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has to stand on its own leg and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Sri T. P. Basavaraju Vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 2534. In the absence of any material evidence to corroborate the alleged offences levelled against the accused, this Court cannot presume that the accused was present at the scene and had committed the alleged offences. Accordingly, this court answer point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
20KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
25. Point No.4:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 3 this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.
341, 353, 504 read with sec. 34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.1 is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Office to keep this file against split up accused No.2.
21KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23 rd day of September, 2025) Digitally signed DEEPA VEERASWAMY by DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Ganga Honamma/Informant PW2 : Sri Raghavendra/Mahazar witness PW3 : Sri Jagadish/HC PW4 : Sri B.K.Manjaiah/PI/Partly IO PW5 : Sri Shivaji M Daroor/PC Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint/PW1
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar/PW1
Ex.P3 : Report/PW4
Ex.P4 : FIR/PW4
22
KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: Nil Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.23
KABC030844882019 CC No.27324/2019 23-09-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.
341, 353, 504 read with sec. 34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.1 is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Office to keep this file against split up accused No.2.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City 24