- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12719 CRL.P No. 594 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 594 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SAMPATHRAJ M S/O RAVINDRA M, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT 5-3/6, “SANNIDHI”, KASHIHITHLU, KALKAR, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BAJAL POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SHO, BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D K DISTIRCT - 574 214. AND ALSO REP. BY THE OFFICE OF SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. PADMAPRIAYA D W/O PRASANNA V J, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT ANANYA NILAYA, NEAR CARMEL SADANA, LAILA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574 214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M PARTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12719 CRL.P No. 594 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.859/2013 (CR.NO.228/2012) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT BELTHANGADY POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506 AND 507 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE FO THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELTHANGADY D.K., DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner/accused, who has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is before this Court seeking the following relief: “WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this criminal petition and quash all further proceedings in C.C. No. 859/2013 (Crime No. 228/2012) registered by the respondent Belthangady Police for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, D.K. District, in the interest of justice.” 2. The prosecution alleges that there exists a dispute between the petitioner and the complainant concerning a financial transaction wherein the brother of the 2nd respondent allegedly borrowed money. It is alleged that, in relation to the said dispute, the petitioner, on 27.08.2012, telephonically threatened the complainant with dire consequences, including threats to take away his life. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12719 CRL.P No. 594 of 2024 3. The Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent-State. 4. Section 506 of the IPC pertains to the punishment for criminal intimidation. According to this provision, anyone who commits the offence of criminal intimidation may be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to two years, or with a fine, or with both. 5. Section 503 of the IPC, which defines criminal intimidation, states that: “Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation, or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with the 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 a means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.” 6. In the present case, the prosecution has not produced any substantial evidence to establish that the alleged threat made by the petitioner caused alarm to the complainant or led to the commission of any other offence. Mere allegations of a threat, without corroborative evidence demonstrating that the complainant was indeed alarmed or compelled to act or refrain from acting in any particular manner, cannot suffice to attract the provisions of Section 506 of the IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12719 CRL.P No. 594 of 2024 7. Section 507 of the IPC addresses criminal intimidation by way of anonymous communication. For an offence under this section to be established, it must be demonstrated that the accused, while committing criminal intimidation, did so anonymously or by hiding their identity. 8. In the instant case, the allegation is that the petitioner issued threats over the phone, specifically threatening the complainant with dire consequences and even threatening to end his life. However, there is no material evidence placed on record to demonstrate that such threats were made anonymously or that the petitioner attempted to conceal his identity while making the alleged threats. 9. Furthermore, it is evident that the allegations are rooted in a pre-existing financial dispute, and no prima facie case has been made out to demonstrate that the petitioner’s actions amounted to criminal intimidation within the scope of Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC. 10. In light of the above discussion, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. No sufficient material exists to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner under Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC. ORDER i. The petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12719 CRL.P No. 594 of 2024 ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.859/2013 (Cr.No.228/2012) on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, D.K. against the petitioner/accused is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JS/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2